If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised.

by leave—Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to allow a motion relating to the Perth Boorloo bombing attack, to be moved immediately and determined without amendment.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the motion be determined without amendment and that the question be put after 30 minutes of debate, five minutes per speaker.

Question agreed to.

I move the motion as circulated and inform the Senate that this motion is also being sponsored by Senators McCarthy, Stewart and Cox:

That the Senate—

(a) condemns the attempted bombing on 26 January 2026 in Boorloo (Perth) that targeted First Peoples and their supporters;

(b) notes that the Western Australia Joint Counter Terrorism Team, consisting of the Western Australia Police Force, the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, is investigating the incident as a potential terrorist act;

(c) acknowledges the serious harm this has caused and expresses its solidarity with all those impacted by this event;

(d) notes that an attack against First Nations people is an attack against all Australians;

(e) notes that for many First Nations people, 26 January is a day of mourning and that an attack on this day, at an Invasion Day rally, represents a serious escalation of racial violence against First Peoples;

(f) condemns all acts of violence and racism against First Peoples, and stands in solidarity with First Peoples against racism and hate directed at them;

(g) affirms that this Parliament's recent condemnation of racially motivated hatred unambiguously includes racism directed at First Peoples;

(h) notes that the federal government has a duty to equally protect all people in this country from racism, discrimination, hate speech and the threat of racially motivated violence;

(i) acknowledges that First Peoples in Australia continue to face entrenched racism, racially-motivated hate and threats of violence, and that any instance of this is unacceptable and must be addressed; and

(j) calls for governments to continue to take urgent action to address racism, discrimination, hate speech and violence against First Peoples.

On 26 January families, elders and children gathered in Boorloo Perth on Whadjuk Noongar boodjar. They came peacefully in remembrance to grieve and to heal on a day of mourning for First Peoples. During the smoking ceremony, a man with hate in his heart and the intention to kill our people took his position on a walkway above the crowd. He was armed with a homemade fragmentation bomb packed with ball bearings, screws and explosive liquid. He threw it into the crowd below, where it landed among our elders and children.

The bomb smouldered, smoke rising from its fuse mixing with the smoke of ceremony. Our healing smoke, carrying the memory and strength of our ancestors, was tainted by the poisoned plume of racism and hate. The bomb thankfully did not detonate. It could have caused many deaths. Our elders say it was the protection of our ancestors present through ceremony, holding our people when the worst was intended. Let us be absolutely clear: this should be treated as an act of terror. It was a deliberate act of hate directly targeting First Peoples on our day of mourning.

But that was just the beginning of the harm. In the days that followed, as those who were there and First Peoples across this country came to understand what had nearly occurred, the trauma deepened. The trauma was met with something familiar—silence, minimisation and indifference, another form of violence. The attempted bombing was an act of horrific, overt hate and racism. What followed was the quieter, insidious thrum of the entrenched, systemic racism that shapes this country. Decisions were made in newsrooms, in ministerial offices and in the daily rhythms of power about whether this was urgent, whether it mattered and whether our lives mattered. There was no emergency press conference from the Prime Minister, no proactive statement of condemnation, no solidarity offered to First Peoples left reeling from this attempted act of mass violence. The Prime Minister's only comments came when he was questioned at an unrelated press conference. Since then, the Prime Minister has held multiple press conferences, and not once has this attack been raised by journalists. They have not asked, pressed or pursued. The coalition and others who were so very vocal in response to the Bondi attack have been notably absent. The court has suppressed the attacker's identity, accepting arguments about his safety in prison because so many of our people are incarcerated. Once again, First Peoples are framed as a threat rather than recognised as the victims.

All this silence matters, and it is loud. It sends a message that our lives are not valued, that our safety is not taken seriously. So today I ask this place and everyone listening to pause and reflect and to ask yourselves, honestly: why was this not seen as deserving national attention? This motion is about bringing this country together. It's about recognition and responsibility. It is about condemning hate and racism consistently, no matter who the victim is or what colour their skin is. It asks the parliament to say clearly to First Peoples: 'We hear you. We believe you. We recognise that the racism and hatred directed at you are real and rising.' It calls on this parliament to commit to urgent action to address racism, hate and violence against First Peoples.

I rise to condemn the sickening attack on an Invasion Day rally in Perth last week. On 26 January, First Nations families and non-Indigenous supporters gathered at Forrest Place in peaceful protest, exercising their democratic right to make their voices heard. First Nations people were leading 2½ thousand Australians of all walks of life, waving the Aboriginal flag and national flag and holding banners about serious issues facing First Nations Australians—homelessness, incarceration, health outcomes.

Many of us have seen the released footage of what happened next. As a Noongar elder was addressing the crowd, a man threw an object from a nearby balcony. From police descriptions, it's a miracle that footage wasn't very different. Police have confirmed that the item thrown was an improvised explosive device—metal ball bearings and screws wrapped around an explosive liquid compound of chemicals. We've heard from experts in the media in recent days about the device's destructive potential. Professor Mark Briskey, a counterterrorism expert from Murdoch University, has worked on investigations alongside the AFP and FBI. He described the similarity between this device and others used by terrorists to kill in other countries. It's only by chance that the device didn't detonate and cause mass casualties. Eyewitnesses have said the device landed in an area reserved for the most vulnerable—people in wheelchairs, babies in prams. We narrowly avoided a catastrophic disaster. The Western Australia Joint Counter Terrorism Team is investigating the incident as a potential terrorist act. While a man has been charged over the incident and remains in custody, this remains an ongoing investigation, and we must call this attack out for what it is.

What we saw in Perth last Monday was an attempted bombing of a peaceful First Nations rally led by First Nations Australians and their allies. This was an attack on the social cohesion of the Australian community. It was an attack on all Australians. When our social cohesion is attacked, all of us in this chamber—the government, the opposition and the crossbench—must apply consistent focus and condemnation. Leaders' words carry meaning, and our government will not be silent. The Albanese government condemns this sickening and abhorrent incident. An attack on First Nations Australians is an attack on all Australians, and I am incredibly proud of the Prime Minister for standing up and saying what he said in regard to this incident.

First Nations Australians, like all Australians, must be able to gather peacefully without fearing for our safety. There is no place for hate, intimidation or racism of any form in Australia, and we will continue to take action. Last month, we legislated to target acts of hatred designed to disrupt our social cohesion. That legislation better protects Australians of all racial and ethnic backgrounds, including First Nations Australians, from hateful attacks. As Minister for Indigenous Australians and as a Yanyuwa Garrwa woman, I understand the importance of our work to eradicate violent hate all too well. First Nations Australians have come to understand that, where hateful narratives spread, violence does follow and generations will be devastated.

I'm hearing from First Nations people in Western Australia and around the country, and they are deeply concerned. So many are scared—many are despairing—but First Nations Australians will not be cowed, by this violence, from exercising their rights or from being proud of who they are. We won't stop in our efforts to protect social cohesion in Australia. On behalf of the government, I sincerely extend my condolences to those shaken by these events; to the many people I've spoken to in regard—not just here in the Senate chamber; my colleagues Senator Cox and Senator Lines; and all of those families, Noongar families and allies who were protesting that day. Condolences to you, and we reach out to you to support you. We will not stop in our efforts to ensure that First Nations Australians and all Australians live in safety.

Let me begin by clearly and unambiguously stating that the Liberal Party condemns the attempted bombing on 26 January in Perth. Several of my colleagues and I condemned that immediately in the media after the improvised explosive device was hurled at those people who had gathered. It is appalling, and it's just luck that this wasn't much worse. Regardless, this event has caused so much pain and so much hurt, and it is abhorrent. There is of course no place for violence of this kind in Australia—not ever. We note the ongoing investigation by the Western Australia Police Force, the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. We acknowledge the serious harm caused, and we express our solidarity with all those who were affected.

We affirm this: this is an attack against Indigenous Australians. That's the appropriate term to use. It is an attack also against all Australians, and we must condemn it. Those propositions are not controversial. They should unite this chamber. Violence directed at people because of who they are is simply and categorically unacceptable. It must be condemned plainly, decisively and without qualification.

Where the Liberal Party parts ways with this motion is its decision to go beyond that clear and necessary condemnation and instead prosecute arguments about Australia Day. This is not what this motion needs to be, and it is not what this motion requires. This attack is already being investigated as a potential terrorist attack. That is an investigation to be left to WA police, the AFP and ASIO. Those responsible should face the full force of the law through our police, our security agencies and our courts. That is the proper course. It is not appropriate to use an incident that remains under active investigation to retaliate, to reignite debates about 26 January or to ascribe broader political meaning before the facts are established.

We condemn the attack. We stand against racism and violence. This motion is not a vehicle for prosecuting Australia Day and that debate. This is why we will ask that paragraphs (e) and (i) be put separately. Those provisions are politicising a vile attack that is still under active investigation. Australia Day is not the issue here. Any violence against Australians based on what they believe in is unacceptable, and this motion rightly condemns it. The Liberal Party stands with all those who have been affected, Indigenous or otherwise, and we affirm this parliament's recent condemnation of racially motivated hatred, acknowledging that this unambiguously includes racism directed at Indigenous Australians. I also move the amendment as circulated in my name. The amendment omits 'First Peoples' from paragraph (j) and replaces it with 'all Australians'. This is because violence and intimidation impact all Australians, not just Indigenous Australians.

All people must be free to protest lawfully and peacefully without fear of harm, regardless of their views. No cause will ever be advanced by threatening or harming others. Australians can disagree respectfully, but violence will only deepen division. It is unacceptable. Everyone in this place should be working to bring people together, not to inflame tensions or excuse bad behaviour. The federal government has a duty to equally protect all people in this country from racism, discrimination, hate speech and the threat of racially motivated violence. The government must continue to take urgent action to address racism, discrimination, hate speech and violence in all its forms whenever it appears and wherever it appears. That is why the Liberal Party cannot support the singling out of Indigenous Australians in paragraph (j).

This act of violence is about behaviour, not politics. Violence is wrong, no matter who commits it, when it is committed or why it is committed. Our focus must remain on safety, accountability and peaceful civic engagement. As I said previously, an attack on Indigenous Australians is an attack on all Australians. Australia is better than what we saw in Perth on 26 January. Disagreement must never turn into intimidation and violence. I seek leave to move the amendment as circulated in my name.

Leave granted.

I move:

Amend paragraph (j) as follows:

(j) calls for governments to continue to take urgent action to address racism, discrimination, hate speech and violence against all Australians.

I rise on behalf of the Greens in strong support of the motion condemning the attempted racist terrorist attack on First Nations people and their supporters in Boorloo Perth on Invasion Day. A man threw a homemade bomb into a crowd of First Nations people and allies at the Invasion Day rally, with the intent to hurt and kill people—elders, children, families. It was a racist attack. It was an attempted terrorist attack. The only reason people avoided physical injury was that the device failed to detonate, but this attack and the terrible silence that has followed has inflicted deep trauma on First Nations people; on others at the rally in support, including our Greens senator Jordon Steele-John and his staff; and on all Australians.

The silence from media and conservatives, who were so loudly outraged about antisemitic violence for months, has been deafening. Despite the deliberate targeting of the First Nations community, it took three days for authorities to decide to investigate the attack as a potential act of terrorism. I'm glad they are now investigating, but suppressing the identity of the attacker—and the delay—speaks volumes. It's a familiar pattern. When Neo-Nazis violently attacked Camp Sovereignty in Naarm in August last year, hospitalising community members and desecrating the Aboriginal flag, the police did not investigate the attack as a hate crime.

We currently have the highest rate of Aboriginal deaths in custody in over 40 years. Overpolicing is killing First Nations people, but violence towards First Nations people is simply ignored. The attacks in Naarm and Boorloo are part of an escalation of violence against First Nations people, who are already facing entrenched racism and systemic abuse. The responses to the attacks highlight a brutal truth: not all acts of hate are treated equally in this country.

What message does this send to First Nations people? The constant minimisation of the violence, dispossession and inequality that they have faced since colonisation is a national shame. A bomb was thrown into a crowd of people on Invasion Day. There could be no more blatant attack, yet it barely caused a ripple in the media. The Western Australian opposition leader is yet to even comment on the attack.

We all stood in this place just weeks ago and promised to reduce hate; that means all hate. Any act of racially motivated violence and discrimination must be clearly condemned and action taken against perpetrators. The fact that no-one was physically injured in this attack is a blessing, but it should not take away from the seriousness of what has occurred. I'd like to share my support and gratitude to the event organisers and the volunteers in Boorloo who worked to keep those gathered safe amidst the confusion and fear that rippled through the crowd at Forrest Place last Monday. This event, which should have been a peaceful gathering, has been retraumatising for many First Nations people, and I send my condolences and solidarity to all those who are feeling the impacts of this attack.

We have seen the violence that develops from racial vilification, we have seen the risks of ignoring threats, and we have seen that weak or permissive responses create the environment for radicalisation. What we need to see is genuine action. We must not let conservative politicians divide us with Trump-style rhetoric inciting hate against First Nations people, migrants or other marginalised groups. This parliament must equally protect all people in Australia from racism, discrimination, hate speech and violence. We must respond with equal conviction to all acts of racially motivated violence. We must tackle the conditions that enable fear to turn to hate: cost-of-living and housing pressures, racist dog whistling from the media, and algorithms and online echo chambers fanning the flames.

An attack against First Nations people is an attack against all Australians. We must continue to stand with First Nations communities calling for truth, treaty and justice, and we must fully fund and implement the National Anti-Racism Framework to create a genuinely cohesive, inclusive and antiracist society.

I rise to echo the words of Senator Lidia Thorpe and all my other colleagues standing in support of this motion. Thank you, Senator Thorpe, for having the courage that we didn't see from the government as immediately as we have seen in other situations. On 26 January this device was thrown, and there is still debate over whether it was a terrorist attack or not, whether it was politically motivated or not. The T word was not being used. It begs the question: did we need to have casualties for this to have an immediate reaction from the government and from authorities in general?

This man, a 31-year-old man from the Perth suburb of Warwick, was charged the next day. As he faced court on 27 January, the court put in place a suppression order to conceal the man's identity after his defence lawyer raised safety concerns. If this man had been a man of colour, the reaction would have been very different, and we know it. That's the elephant in the room that we want to address. If this man had been a person of colour, his face would have been plastered on the front page of the West Australian. The Daily Mail would have been frothing over speculations, and Sky News would have been making all sorts of accusations and sowing seeds of division into our already fractured society. That's not what we need right now. Only a few weeks ago we came here to debate hate speech laws, but it seems the outrage is very selective. It only matters when it's a particular perpetrator or if a particular segment of our society are the victims.

On Friday I was walking down the streets from my office to the post office, and an Indigenous man came up to me and said: 'I know who you are. Can you just send a message to parliament when you go back that we feel very invisible. Our First Nations people feel invisible because our pain is neglected, our pain is not considered as important as every other Australian's pain and suffering. Our path to reconciliation seems to be very symbolic. It's just thrown around as confetti, but nobody really pays attention to it.' That was just one of the many concerns that people have raised either by writing to me or by speaking to me on the streets.

The news reports are calling this man a lone wolf. His identity is concealed. 'Nothing to see here; let's move on, people. The bomb didn't detonate and nobody died, so get over it,' is the sentiment we are getting. But the amount of trauma that this inflicted on the people who were there at the Invasion Day rally is catastrophic. People are scared, and rightfully so.

Just a week before 26 January, I received a letter, and many other colleagues may have received it too. I will read parts of the letter because it's very concerning. If this is the mentality that certain people have, it's no wonder that that incident, the terrorist attack at Boorloo, took place. It starts with:

Palestinians, Lebanese, Arabs, Muslims, Aboriginals, Torres Strait Islanders … socialists

…   …   …

Anyone from these groups who protests on 'Australia Day' should be beaten to death in the street on January 26th to show that we will no longer take their shit.

In the lead up to the 26th, our great National Day of celebrating everything Aussie, you should purchase spray paint and go out and spray walls in your local shopping centre with the 'V' symbol to let the bastards know that we are around, we will be watching them and we will kill them if we get the opportunity. Be brave.

But don't be stupid. Wear a hoodie because you will be caught on camera and the cops are so traitorous that they will arrest you while letting Arabs walk all over our 'sacred sites'—

(Time expired)

This year on 26 January thousands of people gathered peacefully in the centre of Perth, on Whadjuk Nyoongar boodjar, to mark a day that carries profound significance for First Peoples. Australia Day means different things to different people. For all, it should be a day where people can come together and express their views peacefully. Instead, those gathered were placed in danger.

I want to be very clear about the seriousness of what occurred. Throwing an explosive device into a crowd of approximately 2,000 people is not symbolic, it is not abstract and it is not a minor incident. It is an act that could have killed people. We came incredibly close to a devastating tragedy. I want to acknowledge the swift actions of police, who acted quickly and calmly to prevent harm, but I also want to speak plainly about the impact this incident has had, particularly on First Nations communities. I know how deeply this has shaken our people and, in particular, my community. I have heard from parents frightened for their children; from elders who are angry, who are hurt and who are exhausted; and from young people questioning whether it's safe to gather, to protest, or even to be visible. That fear is real and that anger is justified, and it deserves to be acknowledged. This happened on a day that already carries intergenerational trauma for First Nations people. To have a homemade explosive thrown into a crowd of people gathering peacefully adds another layer to an already loaded day. It sends a message that even when we come together peacefully, our safety can be taken for granted.

But now the matter is before the courts. Charges have been laid, and WA police are working with the AFP and ASIO to investigate whether this is an act of terrorism. I want to put on the record that, as a former police officer, I know the importance of allowing the legal process to run its course, but acknowledging that the process doesn't diminish the harm the attempted attack has caused to my community and to the many, many allies who were there on that day. 'Terror' is not just a legal definition; terror is about the impact and it is about the fear. It is about people wondering whether they will make it home peacefully after expressing their views. That is what people experienced in Perth, in Boorloo, my home. That impact is still being felt, not just in Western Australia but by First Nations people and their communities across this country.

We must also be honest about the fact that this didn't happen in a vacuum. It came when we'd just recently seen horrific violence inflicted on Australians, and we returned to this place to deal with that matter. This is why the Albanese Labor government is acting to strengthen social cohesion: acting on hate crimes, working with states and territories to keep our communities safe, and backing law enforcement to stop violence before it happens.

Let me be clear: we will not allow this incident to fracture our communities further. The strong response to violence and intimidation is solidarity. To our community, our elders, our children, our aunties and our uncles and everyone who was present at Forrest Place on 26 January: You are not alone. You are valued. You deserve safety, dignity and peace. Our capacity for love, community and collective care is stronger than hate; it always has been and always will be.

I will put the amendment as moved by Senator Liddle, which has been circulated in the chamber. Senator Canavan?

I have a point of order. The Nationals would also like to vote separately on (j). I didn't get an opportunity to speak in the debate, but I just wanted to indicate that.

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Liddle be agreed to.

The opposition have indicated they wish to separate out (e) and (i). The question is that paragraphs (e) and (i) of Senator Thorpe's motion be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Senator Cash has indicated that we record their opposition.

The National Party would like (j) put separately.

Same, please—we want (e) and (i) put separately.

We've just done (e) and (i).

by leave—We want to record our opposition.

Thank you, Senator Roberts. The question is that paragraph (j) be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

by leave—Could we have the National Party's opposition to (j) recorded, and (e) and (i) as well.

Yes. I'm assuming, Senator Roberts, you would like your opposition to (j) to be recorded?

by leave—Yes.

The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Thorpe be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the Israeli president's visit to Australia, as circulated.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in the name of Senator Waters, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the Israeli president's visit to Australia.

It's hard to express just how disgraceful the government's invitation to Israel's President Herzog is. They know it will inflame community divisions and they know it will call into question our government's commitment to international law and human rights, and they just don't care. We've seen the photo of President Herzog signing bombs that were sent into Gaza. He's accused by a UN commission of inquiry of inciting genocide. That's not just a slogan that you don't like; it's the active facilitation of the mass murder of tens of thousands of Palestinian adults and children and of unimaginable harm and sorrow for the hundreds of thousands injured and the millions that love them.

The UN independent international commission of inquiry found that President Herzog made statements that incited the commission of genocide. On 13 October 2023, President Isaac Herzog stated:

It's an entire nation out there that is responsible. It is not true, this rhetoric about civilians who were not aware and not involved. It is absolutely not true.

That's what he said. That isn't just inflammatory rhetoric. What Herzog was calling for is collective punishment, and there is a reason it is illegal and a war crime. That appalling statement was also cited before the International Court of Justice as demonstrating genocidal intent on the part of Israel. What the hell is Labor doing inviting someone like that to Australia? They talk big about stopping hate at our borders, using ministerial powers to refuse visas, but then send a special invite to Herzog. It shows what they really mean.

Senator Shoebridge, I remind you that this is a suspension order. It is absolutely okay for you to refer to the person you are talking about, but you also need to inform the chamber as to why you are moving this motion.

This is urgent. This needs to be before the Senate so that we rescind the invitation. He's coming next week. Over 500 prominent Australians, including former diplomats and public servants, took out a full-page advertisement calling this invitation, which will be happening next week, immoral and wrong. They're right. Hundreds of thousands of Australians have spent more than two years in the streets protesting genocide. They've marched, they've rallied peacefully and we've joined them. They are a great movement for humanity such that Australia has not seen before. They are the longest continuing mass protests across the country, and their core demand is peace. They've used their voice to say, 'Not in our name,' and how does this government respond? They wrap themselves around the head of state of the very country accused of committing those crimes.

Senator Shoebridge, I remind you again that you are talking about the suspension motion that you moved, not about the substantive motion which you weren't given leave to move.

These visits are happening next week, and in this parliament the government will try to shut down the debate. On the streets they will try to shut down the debate. They will try to stop us from saying, as is our right, that Herzog is not welcome and should not visit next week. They will try to ensure that someone who signed a bomb that was dropped on civilians in Gaza is shielded from even seeing the millions of people in this country who reject his actions. This government and other Labor governments around the country are simultaneously trying to restrict protest rights and suppress dissent, including in this chamber. Australia is a signatory to the genocide convention. That means we have moral obligations—not suggestions, not guidelines but obligations—to prevent genocide wherever it occurs.

Senator Shoebridge, once again I remind you to focus on why the suspension motion is necessary.

Next week this government is going to be providing the red carpet for a man who incited genocide, and the genocide isn't over; it's continuing today. During the so-called ceasefire, Israeli defence force attacks have killed over 500 people and injured more than 1,300 others, all while Isaac Herzog has been in power. I can't believe I have to say this: when someone is accused by the United Nations of inciting genocide, you don't invite them for tea. You don't give them a platform and you certainly don't welcome them as a guest of honour, next week, while suppressing the voices of those who object. The division this visit will cause isn't on the protesters. It isn't on the hundreds of thousands of Australians demanding their government live up to its values. The division next week's visit will cause is on this government for making a choice that betrays the Australian community's conscience and exposes this Labor government's moral cowardice.

History will judge this moment. It will judge whether we stood on the right side or whether we chose cynical pandering, to the US and its ally Israel, over justice. It will judge whether we listened to calls for justice or tried to silence them in here, on the street and in the media. I urge all members to support this motion to send a clear message that Australia will not be complicit in genocide. This invitation is immoral. It is wrong, and it's time we said so.

I, too, rise to address what is meant to be a debate in relation to whether or not the Senate should suspend standing orders, but I have to say, despite Senator Shoebridge not quite addressing the actual question before the chair, I'm glad he gave the speech that he did. You see, this is the reason that the Liberal Party will not be supporting the suspension of standard orders. Unfortunately, what we've seen on, technically, the first day back for the sitting year—as we know, there are three certainties in life. The first is, unfortunately, death. The second is taxes. The third, as we just saw, is the Greens' hatred of Israel. As far as the Liberal Party is concerned, this is just another day, another stunt, in the lives of the Australian Greens, at the expense of us being able to move on to legislation that does need to be debated and passed in this place, and, as I said, we've barely commenced the parliamentary sitting year for 2026.

Unfortunately, this motion is entirely consistent with the Greens' approach to Israel. This is just another opportunity—and this was articulated in the speech—for the Australian Greens to grandstand, but it's more than that, and this is why we will not be supporting the suspension motion. This is merely an opportunity for the Australian Greens to import—or should I say 'attempt to import', because I do hope that the suspension motion does not get up—protest politics into the Senate chamber. It is just another effort by the Australian Greens to turn the Senate's procedures into a platform for performance—it wasn't a great performance, to be honest; I've seen you do better—rather than for serious debate.

Another reason that the suspension should not be supported is in relation to the hypocrisy of the motion that we currently have before the chamber and the actions less than two months after the Islamic terrorist attack in Bondi, in which, as we know, 15 Australians were brutally murdered. The Australian Greens are asking us to suspend standing orders to debate a motion that would stop the president of the only Jewish majority country in the world coming to Australia. This is of vital importance to the Jewish community, given the murder of 15 Jewish people.

Let's just ignore the genocide aspect.

You can see, from the parroting going on in the back here, that the Greens know this is of vital importance to the Jewish community, but two weeks ago they stood in this place and said they were in solidarity with the Jewish community. Well, asking for the suspension today—

Senator Cash, please resume your seat. Senator McKim?

My point of order is in relation to relevance. You were very strict in applying that criteria to Senator Shoebridge. I ask that you apply the same standards to Senator Cash, who's clearly not making an argument as to what—

Senator McKim, resume your seat. Firstly, I'm going to remind the Greens that Senator Shoebridge was heard in silence. I've called you to order twice already. Senator Cash has the right to be heard in silence. If you don't wish to hear her contribution, you may leave the chamber. Secondly, there is no point of order because Senator Cash is being directly relevant to the suspension motion. Please continue, Senator Cash.

Again, this is not a debate on the motion. This is a debate on whether there is urgency for the Senate to actually choose to suspend standing orders to allow the motion to be debated. As I said, the Senate should not play along with the theatrics and the acting of the Australian Greens. Let us be clear: this is a matter of foreign affairs. Australia's relationship with Israel should not be used as a prop, as it is being used, for parliamentary theatrics. Israel is a friend of Australia. Israel is a democratic partner. It is a strategic security partner. You don't have to agree with everything Israel says, obviously, but the Australian Greens do not want to debate.

The UN says it's genocide!

You can see it now.

Order! I have called you to order. Senator Shoebridge was heard in absolute silence, as Senator Cash will be and as any other speaker in this debate will be. If that doesn't suit you, leave the chamber. Senator Cash, please continue.

I think it's actually really disappointing because every person who comes into this chamber is able to express an opinion in relation to the question before the chair. As you said, President, Senator Shoebridge was heard in silence when he spoke of why there should be a suspension of standing orders. Unfortunately what the Australian people are now witnessing is the Australian Greens saying, 'It's my way or the highway.' Well, the bad news is that, in this case, we are not going to support the suspension. The fact that they're talking now shows that the Greens want to silence anybody who does not agree with them. Quite frankly, that is one of the reasons that this suspension motion should not go ahead. There are proper avenues for debate. There are proper ways to put views on the record. There are proper mechanisms for scrutiny and accountability. The way the Greens are behaving now is not one of them.

The government does not support this suspension of standing orders. To be clear, the government doesn't support the content of this motion either. It's entirely appropriate for the Prime Minister to invite President Herzog following the Bondi attack targeting the Jewish community, which has devastated many families and the Jewish community across Australia. As Senator Cash pointed out, there are other opportunities for the Greens to advance these arguments in the Senate, including as a matter of public importance, as an urgency motion in the general business debate, in senators' statements or in the adjournment debate, rather than disrupting the important routine of business. I move:

That the question be now put.

The question is that the closure motion as moved by Senator Chisholm be agreed to.

The question now is that the suspension motion moved by Senator Shoebridge be agreed to.

I rise on behalf of the Liberal Party, the opposition, to speak on the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. Upfront, the Liberal Party will be supporting this bill. Why will we support it, though? Because, quite frankly, Australians deserve decisions that are made faster and that reduce backlogs, but, more than that, they deserve an administrative review system that is actually able to function in the real world.

Why has this bill been brought before this place? Interestingly, this is not the first time that an ART bill has been brought before this place. The reason this bill is here—I can't remember if it's number three now or number four—is that we are now in the aftermath of a complete policy wrecking exercise by former attorney-general Mark Dreyfus. In fact, I don't think there has ever been a minister in the history of government in Australia that has had to return to the chamber as many times as former attorney-general Mark Dreyfus, because the legislation that was originally put through was so egregious in terms of its fundamental flaws. But here we are again. Is this the last time? I honestly couldn't tell you.

It won't be the last time.

You are right, Senator Scarr. It will not be the last time. As I said, we'll support this, but that's because we are here today to help the Labor Party—to help the government—clean up what I said was a complete policy wrecking exercise by former attorney-general Mark Dreyfus. In fact, that would be a nice little banner: 'Former attorney-general Mark Dreyfus. ART. One billion dollars. Complete policy wrecking exercise.'

What actually happened in context of this bill was, if you recall, for purely political reasons, the former attorney-general tore down the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and replaced it—and we'll get to the cost shortly—at great cost to the Australian taxpayer: $1 billion. One billion dollars to tear down what was known as the AAT and replace it with the ART. All Australians need to understand this: it cost you $1 billion—$1 billion!—that could have been spent elsewhere, on actually assisting you, to change the name of the body from the AAT to the ART.

What's also happened is—we didn't support this legislation—the changes that the Labor government put forward have meant Australians have paid the price in blowouts, backlogs and dysfunction. I can't wait to hear the government senator try to explain away what this bill is, seriously. These talking points are really going to be talking points for the moment. Let us be very clear. This is a clean-up bill. One might even say it is a legislative mop and bucket. What the Australian Labor Party had sold the Australian people as a new era of integrity and efficiency in administrative review has, in practice—we will go through the figures shortly—delivered delay, backlog, confusion and dysfunction. As I said, we're back here again. I'm with Senator Scarr—I don't think it's going to be the last time that we are forced back into the parliament to fix the consequences of a 'design fail' bill.

Let's have a look at what Labor promised. They promised Australians that the new tribunal would restore trust, speed up outcomes and raise standards. I have to say, if I heard that, at first blush, I'd probably say, 'That sounds pretty good.' The bad news for Australians is this: you don't live in press releases. You live in the real world. The impact on the real world is this, where a decision is delayed for months, and months, and months. That is not integrity. It is a system failing the people who are subject to it. That failure is not theoretical. Outcomes matter more than slogans. The slogans sounded great at the time, but the reality is this. The test of a tribunal is simple: How long does it take to get a decision? Is the process predictable and accessible? And does it support program integrity, particularly when we're talking about migration cases? Or—and this is where we're at—does it become a bottleneck that invites delay and exploitation?

On each of those tests, Labor's model—$1 billion, which changed an A to an R—they are actually failing. This is the reality. These are the numbers. They are damning. The caseload, from the AAT to the $1 billion ART, was 67,000 matters in May 2022, when we left office. For a billion dollars of taxpayers' money, former attorney-general Mark Dreyfus has now increased that caseload—it is quite spectacular—by almost 50 per cent to 111,000, Senator Scarr.

It's 126,000 now!

It's 126,000—there you go! I'm going to speak to my staff on that. It's 126,000 now. It was 67,000 in May 2022. We were meant to be decreasing the caseload. The caseload has almost doubled to 126,000. Worse is this: median case times have blown out. In May 2022 they were around 30 weeks. They are now 68 weeks. Remember that this is a billion dollars of taxpayers' money that was meant to provide more integrity in the system. Worse, student visa appeals have surged from around 2,000 cases in 2022—this is almost unbelievable; in fact, I thought there was a mistake, but it's not—to more than 40,000.

It's 48,000.

It's 48,000. It keeps on growing. Senator Scarr, if we give this speech next week, it'll go up again. But, again, this is the issue. It costs the Australian taxpayer $1 billion. It's a billion dollars, and they were sold a pup. It's a billion dollars, and they were told, 'We are going to bring all of these waiting times down.' Guess what? These are the statistics. The government cannot resile from them in their talking points, and quite frankly the statistics are an absolute indictment on the government.

This is not a minor administrative inconvenience. This is now a serious problem for the integrity and credibility of Commonwealth decision-making. What is the government trying to do with this bill? I have to say, this is where the irony, quite frankly, is even greater. What we are agreeing to today is something that the Liberal Party had argued for consistently. So what are we doing? We will establish a fast-track on-the-papers review process for certain visa decisions, particularly student visa refusal decisions. Why? It's because we agree that, with the blowout in the wait times and the decision-making, we actually do now need a process that will cut through the backlog and deliver timely outcomes.

Oh!

But this is the irony, Senator Scarr. We are actually going to, within reason, implement the process that, when we were in government, they vehemently opposed. We, when we were in government, as you know, implemented the Immigration Assessment Authority. It was called the IAA. It was created under the former Liberal government. Why? Australians probably don't want to be reminded of this history, but it was to deal with a backlog and a surge in protection claims that flowed from Labor's border-policy failures during the Rudd-Gillard years. We are a welcoming and generous nation. We all know that. But under the former Liberal government we maintained a strong humanitarian program. The reason we could do so is because the system was carefully managed. It was firm but fair, had stronger borders through security checks and had a review system that did not collapse, as it is currently doing, under its own weight. That balance matters. If you recall that during the Rudd-Gillard period there was chaos—I think it was an influx of 50,000 irregular maritime arrivals at the time—I sat on the relevant committee at the time, the last time we were in opposition. It was a tragic loss at sea. Of course, there was a surge in claims that inevitably fed into the review system.

When we came into government, what did we do? We established the IAA. Why? It was because we wanted to clean up the backlog. Guess what? It actually worked. We resolved this backlog. Cases were being decided in weeks not months or years. But at the time Labor hated it. They called us every name under the sun. They opposed this efficiency in the system bitterly. They knew that every case that came before the IAA was a reminder of the consequence of their policy setting failures and that a fast-track on-the-papers review was necessary to get through the migration mess that they had created. In fact, they hated it so much, despite the fact that we're here today doing what the Liberal Party had done in government, they even put in their national platform that it should be abolished.

So it's going to be interesting to listen to the speeches on the other side justifying something that they opposed last time they were in opposition, something that, in their national platform, they said should be abolished, when here we are today because the $1 billion of taxpayers' money that was spent to produce a fairer and more equitable system has fundamentally failed Australians. They are introducing what we, as the Liberal government, introduced—just under a different name. That is the reality. Once again, Labor is in power. Once again, the migration system has blown out. And, once again, as has happened previously, the government is reaching for Liberal backed mechanisms to slice through the backlog.

What were the main features of the IAA that were necessary to deal with Labor's mismanagement of our migration program? There was a rapid, on-the-papers review designed to cut through the backlog—and it did; the statistics don't lie. What are we actually debating today? What's the main feature in the bill that is currently before the Senate? That would be a rapid, on-the-papers review designed to cut through the backlog. Well,    quite frankly, if it looks like a duck and it waddles like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it is a duck. That's why we're supporting it: because you're implementing Liberal Party policy that you opposed the last time you were in opposition and put into your platform that you never wanted to see. Yet here we are today, because you spent a billion dollars of taxpayers' money. You have failed the Australian taxpayer completely, so you've had to adopt Liberal Party policy to clean up your mess. In fact, Senator Scarr, the last time we spoke about the IAA in the chamber you made the point that IAA decisions were upheld at rates directly comparable to a full merits review in the AAT and that those decisions were made in around seven weeks, not seven months. You were right. This body is necessary. It was an efficient body. It is going to be an efficient body. It was needed back then to clean up Labor's migration mess.

So, whilst I despair that the former Attorney-General of this country spent one billion dollars of Australian taxpayers' money changing an 'A' to an 'R' and in the process delivering to them chaos, dysfunction and delay—that is, unfortunately, backed up; those on the other side can say what they like, but the statistics do not lie: backlog, delay and dysfunction—I'm glad that this government has finally come to its senses. I'm glad that, despite the billion-dollar waste—in fact, it's more than a billion dollars now, because of the waste—the Labor government has again realised that we do need a process, like the Liberal government introduced, to cut through the backlog and restore basic functionality. That's why the Liberal Party is very happy to support the re-establishment of that type of mechanism in this bill.

When you get to the heart of the issue, when it comes to running migration and keeping administrative review moving, Labor creates the mess—the mess is now there for all to see; the statistics are there—and then comes back into the parliament and asks the Liberal Party to help clean it up, which we will do, because the Australian taxpayer deserves better. As I said, policy failure by the former Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, tore down a tribunal that was operating and implemented, at a cost of a billion dollars, a model that's been slower, more costly and totally overwhelmed, with unprecedented blowouts and case load and months and months and months of delay.

As I said, the Liberal Party will back this bill. We will do so in the interest of all Australians, because we want to get matters moving, we want to reduce the backlogs and we want to restore a system that—just like when we were in government—actually works in practice.

I rise today to express my support for the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. Improving the efficiency of the Administrative Review Tribunal is an incredibly important issue for many people and also for me as the chair of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. The Albanese Labor government is committed to merits review. It's a fundamental feature of our legal system. A quick, efficient and informal merits review improves government decision-making and helps build and maintain public confidence in our institutions. That is why we abolished the deeply, deeply dysfunctional Administrative Appeals Tribunal, after years of mismanagement by those opposite and political stacking by those opposite. The Albanese government inherited an outdated system with a significant backlog. But, unlike those opposite, we are a government that take action and—

Senators Cash and Scarr, you were heard in silence. You will show respect to Senator Stewart.

we are determined to make the tribunal more efficient and fairer for all.

The tribunal, in its current form, began operating in October 2024. By bringing in a sustainable funding model and merit based appointments, we have strengthened the tribunal's integrity. However, what is clear from all accounts is that the current model is far from perfect. We are not shying away from that. There are significant operational issues that are hindering the efficiency of the tribunal. We know that the current procedures are not flexible enough. We know that there are significant delays and backlogs. Applicants are left in limbo for months and even years, waiting for what should be a quick merits review. This bill will change that.

The tribunal currently requires oral hearings in most circumstances, even for simple matters which could be resolved through written submissions. That does not reflect the actual needs of matters before the tribunal. This bill would ensure that merits review is proportionate and has been informed by recommendations from Christine Nixon's Rapid review into the exploitation of Australia's visa system. This bill will expand the tribunal's ability to make decisions 'on the papers', which means without conducting an oral hearing, in appropriate cases. That is what this bill is all about—allowing the tribunal to adapt to the circumstances, where appropriate.

This supports the government's commitment to ensuring the tribunal has the tools that it needs to deliver effective and efficient merits review and address its significant case load of applicants for review. These measures are appropriate and reasonable given the low volume and complexity of relevant materials. The tribunal would be required to seek submissions from applicants, and it must consider those submissions before coming to its decision.

It is also important to note that the bill specifically excludes permanent and protection visa matters. This is because these matters generally include more complex information and, in the case of protection visa applications, a more vulnerable cohort of applicants. We have been listening to feedback from genuine applicants and understand how stressful long waiting times and uncertainty can be for them. These delays reduce their access to justice, and the case overload means they are sometimes waiting months or years for a decision. That isn't fair or reasonable. This bill would reduce the backlog at the tribunal stage and allow those genuine applicants to know the outcome of their review faster.

But we also acknowledge that, as a government, we have the important task of protecting our nation's migration system. We want to ensure that non-genuine applicants aren't given a chance to exploit our merits review system to prolong their stay. We know that onshore applicants seeking review of a decision to refuse the granting of certain visas are entitled to stay in Australia on a bridging visa for the duration of the merits review process. We need to be pragmatic about the risks of this nuance of the merits review process and take action to prevent non-genuine applicants from gaming the system. This bill will remove that incentive and safeguard the integrity of merits review. Increased efficiency does not mean that we'll disregard quality decision-making, and we must strike a balance between the two. The decisions made at the tribunal have a real-life impact on those people who come before it. The Albanese government recognises that not every review is the same. That is why the tribunal should be empowered to provide a meaningful opportunity for review in a way that is appropriate to the circumstances of the matter. The time and resources expended to determine a matter should always reflect the complexity of the issues and the importance of what is at stake.

Let me be clear: nothing in this bill will stop an applicant from putting forward a full and forthright case to the tribunal. The Albanese government is committed to merits review and to maintaining public trust in the tribunal. Merits review is absolutely a critical part of our legal system, and that is not changing. But it should also be proportionate. The tribunal has a crucial role to play in enabling fair, quick and inexpensive reviews of government decisions. This bill will help adapt the tribunal's procedures, which are no longer fit for purpose, in a way that is best suited to the matters and issues that come before the tribunal.

This bill is bringing in balanced and targeted measures to ensure that the tribunal has the tools that it needs to manage its case load efficiently and fairly. While we further empower the tribunal to make efficient and timely decisions, we also ensure applicants have a meaningful opportunity to make their case to the tribunal. As the chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, and after hearing submissions and expert evidence, I strongly support this bill.

Unlike the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and One Nation, the Greens will be opposing the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. I was on the review by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, and I listened to multiple witnesses from a variety of different organisations who gave clear evidence about why this bill should not be supported, how it will take away important procedural rights, how it is unfairly targeted at migrants and how, potentially, it is going to give significantly expanded powers to the government of the day to remove even more rights from reviews in migration matters.

I also heard, because I listened, the evidence about the real failures causing the backlog not being in the Administrative Review Tribunal—although I accept that they're underresourced and they don't have the appointments they should have to deal with the work. The real reason the backlog is happening in the ART is the poor behaviour of Home Affairs and its automatic refusal of tens of thousands of visa applications because people haven't got all their documentation together at a particular point in time. The surge of refusals from Home Affairs explains a large part of the backlogs in the ART.

What I find remarkable, having listened carefully to Senator Cash and then to Senator Stewart, is that not one of them referred to the multiple compelling submissions from stakeholders and people engaged in the space who said that this bill should not be supported. Not one of them made any reference to those, so no wonder those stakeholders are asking themselves, 'What is the process for—this sham process where the government presents a piece of legislation which is largely reheating the coalition's previous attacks on procedural fairness rights in the ART?' To that extent, Senator Cash was right that this is legislation from the Labor Party trying to put into the microwave some failed efforts from the coalition previously. That part of Senator Cash's analysis was right. What Senator Cash failed to address, of course, is that the intent of the coalition at the time and the intent of Labor now, no doubt with the support of One Nation, is to remove rights from people when they say that their visa application has been unfairly or wrongly refused by Home Affairs. If the government were serious about reform to address the backlog that the ART is facing, it should do two things: it should properly and adequately resource the ART, putting in the members who are needed to do the job, and it should look to Home Affairs and its poor behaviour—its 'refuse first, ask questions later' behaviour—that is driving tens of thousands of applications into the ART. But, of course, that would require putting the hard word on Home Affairs, not punching down on migrants.

Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. You will be in continuation. It being 1.30, we will now proceed to two-minute statements.

Like so many in this place, I continue to meet with members of the Iranian community here in Australia. In recent weeks I met with representatives of the Iranian Australian community in my hometown of Perth. Their message was a simple one and it was a very clear one: they are terrified for their families and their friends back at home in Iran, and they are just tired. They are tired of watching a regime brutalise its own people with impunity.

To be very clear, the Iranian regime is inflicting violence on its own civilians. Worse yet, this includes women, children, young people—as we've seen on the television—journalists, human rights activists, as well as religious and ethnic minorities. This is a regime that rules by fear, lethal force against protesters, arbitrary detention, torture, ill treatment and the intimidation of families. It punishes not just the individual but the entire family, because collective punishment is the point. It silences the truth with censorship and with shutting down internet communications—cutting people off from each other, hiding abuses and trying to make the world look away.

The Iranian Australian community also speak about the fear that follows them here, with threats, intimidation and harassment. They have escaped the regime but it follows them here to Australia—the long reach of a regime that refuses to stop at its own borders. This is unacceptable. We stand in solidarity with the Iranian people in their pursuit of freedom, dignity and justice. To the Iranian Australian community: your concerns have been heard.

There is so much terrible news to report to the chamber, but I want to take the opportunity to bring some good news—that is about the official reopening of the John Houston Memorial Swimming Pool after a refurbishment. Its reopening, on 19 December at 11 am, was a remarkable community event. This was made possible by $4.2 million in funding from the federal government under the Growing Regions Program, combined with $3 million from the state government of New South Wales, funding of $200,000 from local ratepayers and $320,000 raised by a fantastic local woman called Gail Munn—part of the package of the entire renewal, which is now a signature for anybody who's going to or through Hay.

This pool is a consequence of John Houston, who became concerned about a problem in his community when he was a kid growing up in Hay: kids were drowning in the river and something needed to be done about it. John didn't sit back, whinge about it and wait for somebody to come and solve the problem. He decided that he was going to do something and formed the Hay swimming pool committee, which fundraised for 10 years to get the pool built. That's what great citizens across this country do. They love our country. They love their community. They find ways to make life better and to connect us as fellow Australians.

John Houston showed that, and he showed us that we can solve our community's problems. We don't leave it to someone else; we need to work together. There is nobody else. We are the sum total of the resources of this nation, and we need to do things together for our own collective benefit. The John Houston Memorial Pool is a shining example of identifying a problem, having a dream to make it better and competing fairly against other projects around the country to acquire federal money to make this country even better.

We're just one month into 2026 and already six women have been killed by men's violence.

The murder of pregnant First Nations woman Sophie Quinn, her new partner, and her aunt, Nerida Quinn, shocked us all.

Two women had already been killed before those deaths. One is still unnamed, and the other was Velvet Pesu, a Queensland performing artist and social worker. She was a well-known and much-loved Queenslander whom I'd had the privilege of meeting. Velvet had a huge heart and was incredibly generous. She was always helping people and touched everyone's soul with deep understanding, kindness and love. She is deeply missed.

Two more as-yet-unnamed women have been killed by men they knew since then. Last year, the organisation Counting Dead Women recorded at least 52 women killed by violence. The system is failing women and children. Sophie Quinn's alleged murderer had six separate AVOs in the past 10 years and was on bail for DV offences when Sophie and her unborn child were killed. The number of missed opportunities to intervene and save lives is staggering. It is a national crisis and a national shame, yet frontline services remain grossly underfunded and are forced to turn too many women away. The Queensland Police Service just announced cuts to their dedicated family and domestic violence service. Housing shortages mean women face homelessness if they leave, so the cycle continues.

There have been countless inquiries and hundreds of recommendations. We know what needs to change, and it must start with fully funding the frontline. Long-term prevention and behaviour change is critical work, but we must also ensure that services responding to immediate risks have the funding they need, and we must fund recovery programs for victim-survivors. The government needs to make women's safety a priority. (Time expired)

I seek to address the horrific rise in state violence in Iran over the past month. Since late December, a population crushed by economic despair and bereft of hope has sought to assert its basic dignity, and the response of the Iranian regime has been nothing short of medieval. On 8 January, Tehran implemented a complete telecommunications blackout—a measure designed to shroud a massacre. While the numbers since have been difficult to verify, the UN special rapporteur Professor Sato warned the Human Rights Council last week of a staggering discrepancy between official figures and credible reports. These credible reports suggest the deaths that have occurred in Iran because of state sponsored violence have been in the many thousands—as many, perhaps, as 20,000. In other words, they suggest a massacre—a massacre of civilians.

This is not merely an internal matter, because the Iranian regime's behaviour towards its own citizens mirrors its external malignancy. While it executes its own youth in the streets of towns like Tehran and Shiraz, it also continues to export instability and conflict across the Middle East and beyond—indeed, even as far afield as Australia, as we have learned in recent months. I welcome the announcement this morning of new sanctions against IRGC linked individuals, but I note as well that there remain credible reports of family members of senior sanctioned IRGC generals residing in Australia. This is something that we must address. We cannot ignore the fact that Australia remains one of the largest importers of refined oil products with no requirement or assurance that the crude oil that feeds these refineries is not supporting the war and oppression machines of Iran and Russia. This is a loophole we must act to close. (Time expired)

I rise today to thank the Minister for the Environment and Water, the Hon. Murray Watt, for his commitment and attention to the Murray-Darling Basin, particularly in listing the lower Murray as critically endangered. The river is under threat. Overextraction, feral animals, weeds, habitat loss and salinity have all led to a system that we have relied on for generations being less predictable and less stable.

The impacts of an endangered system are felt far beyond the banks of the Murray. Our farmers rely on this river. Our farmers rely on this river to feed the nation. Our communities rely on the river for fresh water and for their very existence across South Australia. There is also a greet reliance from locals and tourists on the river system for leisure, and this goes to the whole manner of how we live our lives in South Australia.

For us, a healthy river system isn't an abstract concept by any stretch. The prosperity of our state, the future of our farmers and the health of our communities are all reliant on the health of the river. Bringing environmental flows back to the river system, restoring those natural systems, is going to be the work of generations. This cannot happen overnight. But that is exactly what this listing does. It gives us a chance to take this opportunity to focus our attention and to genuinely guide actions on the water to make a fundamental difference. (Time expired)

Australians hate double standards, and the double standard around the response to the attempted terrorist attack in Perth needs to be called out. A spotlight needs to be shone on the racism that First Nations people in Australia continue to face. And we need to stop overlooking the seriousness of what happened on 26 January. What we saw on 26 January was the most extreme real-world manifestation of the racism and hate First Nations people have long told us still exists in this country today.

It's revealed the tragic loss of humanity for one another that I think we've all felt slowly slipping through our country's hands—a loss driven by media companies, social media platforms and algorithms who have found hate, division and outrage more profitable than reason and compassion, more profitable than connecting with our fellow humans. And, of course, a loss driven by some politicians—politicians weaponising fear and seeking to boost their own political stocks from racism, hate and division, rather than appealing to people's better selves and showing leadership.

For many of us, the only thing more shocking than seeing someone throw a homemade bomb into a crowd of fellow Australians was the muted language and indifferent response from so many. It wasn't a bomb; it was 'a device'. It wasn't a terrorist act; it was 'a scare'. We cannot downplay the seriousness of what happened. This was a bomb designed to explode, designed to kill, thrown by an Australian at fellow Australians.

Now is the time for solidarity with the First Nations community. We cannot be selective with our outrage. So as a Senate we should be standing in solidarity with all First Nations people and encouraging all Australians now more than ever to be generous, not judgemental; to choose compassion, not cruelty. (Time expired)

This afternoon Australian families might get some pretty bad news—if interest rates go up. And, if they don't go up this afternoon, they still face grave risks of that because Australia now has the highest inflation rates in the developed world. It's a shocking record for our country with so many resources and opportunity that we can't keep the basic cost of living down for people.

The government take no responsibility for this, but their own documents show that they are wrong—that they have contributed to inflationary pressures. Just before Christmas, the Mid Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook came out. Buried on page 81 of that document is an extraordinary statement:

Since the 2025 PEFO—

that's the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook released in April—

total expenses have been revised up by $23.5 billion in 2025-26 and by $55.0 billion over the four years from 2025-26 to 2028-29.

In the space of just seven months this government has presided over a blowout of $55 billion in its own budget, and almost half of that is actually occurring in this financial year. We've never seen anything like this—never before. These revisions always happen. There are always changes. Budgets are never kept to the detail. There are always some revisions, although usually negative, actually—usually more savings. The account's usually conservative. But their previous record was a $10 billion cost blowout. This is a $55 billion cost blowout, and that is directly feeding into the inflationary pressures that the RBA has to deal with this afternoon, potentially by clobbering Australian families with an interest rate rise.

It's about time we had a government that took responsibility for this. Today I've called on the Treasurer to resign. He should resign because nothing has ever been done like this before. This is his budget. He has got his budget wrong to the tune of $55 billion in six months. If this happened in a private company, he'd be out the door as CFO. But, because it's the Labor Party, there's no accountability.

On 26 January I attended the City of Bunbury's Australia Day citizenship ceremony in WA's South West. Seventy-one people from 27 unique countries became new Australian citizens. It was a proud moment that reflected the diversity and strength of modern Australia—a reminder that our national story continues to be shaped by people who choose to make their lives here and contribute to our communities. The service was followed by community awards, and today I want to talk particularly about the Young Citizen of the Year nominees that were recognised at the ceremony. Each of them represents the very best of a Bunbury's next generation.

Connor Barrett, aged just 10, lives with cystic fibrosis and faces daily health challenges. He has raised many thousands of dollars to support research and services for others with the same condition. His courage, positivity and determination have brought the South West community together behind a cause that matters deeply to him and many other local families. His contribution at such a young age is extraordinary. Salome Woodland was nominated for her leadership and commitment to service. Having joined the Bunbury Youth Advisory Council at just 12, she has shown great maturity and commitment to her community. Isabella Chalker was named Young Citizen of the Year. She is the founder of the Z club at Manea Senior College, a student group focused on service and gender equality. Leading projects for local and global communities, she is a great example to others in the region. Lisa Thompson was named Citizen of the Year for her leadership of Collective Connections, and Community Group of the Year was awarded to the Bunbury PCYC. I want to shout out to them and all the great advocates in the South West.

I rise to speak in support of the ABCs show Always Was Tonight, a satirical show that uses humour and creativity to challenge and provoke thought on how we treat our First Nations people. It exposes racism through humour, challenging our thoughts on how Indigenous Australians live their everyday lives and what 26 January means to them and to all of us.

Of course, it seems as though the Liberal Party's fun police have taken issue with this show. The host, Tony Armstrong, an absolute genius in his field, a living legend, is not the type of person that I think the Liberal Party should be trying to attack. He's a hell of a lot funnier than the joke of the Liberal Party or indeed the coalition. Rather than attacking the ABC, perhaps the Liberal Party and its shadow ministers should be looking at their own backyard.

I want to point out one a sad fact. It seems as though the Liberal Party's main issue with this show is the powerful song 'We Shouldn't Call This Place Home', a rendition of Peter Allen's 'I Still Call Australia Home'. It highlights the very real and confronting issue of young Indigenous kids being locked up in jail—kids being locked up from the age of 10 in most states across this country. Rather than being offended at children being locked up, the Liberal Party are appalled and offended by the song itself. Well, I say to the Liberal Party: if seeing kids in spit hoods on television offends you, then stop doing it.

I want to speak today as a woman who's pregnant and learning in real time just how humbling this experience can be. Each trimester brings its own challenges and lessons. The first trimester can knock the wind out of you—the exhaustion, the nausea, the quiet worries you don't always say out loud. The second may offer a little breathing room, even as your body feels unfamiliar and your mind runs through a thousand questions a day. The third, as I'm currently learning, is all about discomfort and the realisation that your body is no longer just your own.

Along the way, there's a lot of advice. Most of it comes from a good place—from family, friends, colleagues, health professionals and people who care for you. Some is reassuring and some is very overwhelming, but it mostly reminds you that pregnancy and motherhood are shared experiences, carried across generations and communities. There's no perfect way to do pregnancy or motherhood; you've just got to do your best on any given day and give yourself permission to ask for help without guilt or shame.

To the mums across the country, whether you're pregnant, raising babies or teenagers, or carrying the weight of motherhood in other ways, I want you to know that I see you. I feel your tiredness, your stress, the physical aches and the emotional load that never really switches off. I feel the love that sits heavy in your heart and the strength it takes to keep showing up. Over the months and years ahead, I'll continue to turn up in this place as both a senator and a mother, carrying with me a deeper respect for the women who do this every single day—whether doing a night shift in a hospital, driving a truck on a FIFO mine or staying home and caring for the rest of their family—without applause. To all the mums out there, thank you. Your courage holds families and the country together. (Time expired)

My congratulations to you on your wonderful news, Senator Payman.

I rise to speak on the Albanese and Cook governments' mismanagement of the proposed Garden Island Highway project in Western Australia. In late 2024, with considerable attention, a $2 million feasibility study was announced to examine road access options in and around HMAS Stirling. The purpose was clear: to assess ways to ease the growing congestion on local roads brought about by the increased activity under AUKUS. A key element highlighted at the time was the proposed extension of the Garden Island Highway. There was broad support across the board, from the local council to both state and local Labor representatives.

Fast forward just over 12 months, and we know that this mysterious feasibility study conducted by Main Roads WA apparently concluded that the highway extension is not needed. They supposedly think that the existing road network can effectively manage traffic impacts without major adjustments. How can we be so sure when this feasibility study has not been released? These conclusions come as a surprise to many, including local residents and the City of Rockingham, which had commissioned its own study in 2024, which highlighted the need for the road extension. Main Roads WA need to justify why they are comfortable with this level of dangerous congestion when locals clearly know that they need this. One local is reported to have said: 'The traffic here is just ridiculous. Both state and federal governments need to make this secret feasibility study available to the public. It seems a sham conclusion was decided even before the study began. Better still, just get on with building the road.'

What a place to find ourselves in at the beginning of 2026. In as late as August last year, the Labor government were claiming credit for a recovering economy and touting their fiscal responsibility. What a difference six months makes. The can could only be kicked down the road so far before the economic reality of Labor's disastrous policies came to bear—3.8 per cent inflation, out-of-control spending and seemingly no plan to bring it back into line.

The MYEFO shows just how badly the Labor government have failed in their economic policy. There has been a record increase in estimated spending of $47.8 billion in just six months. How a government can defend understating their already reckless spending by $47.8 billion is beyond me. These are estimates that are relied upon by the RBA to set fiscal policy. Right now, they'd be better off throwing darts at a dartboard to figure out what spending is going to be. If Mr Chalmers were working in the real world, he would get the chop for a bungle of this magnitude, but, in the world of Labor politics, he's next in line for the top job. The government is trying to hide the bad news, but there's no running from the economic truth. The latest round of inflation figures is a shocking 3.8 per cent, driven by out-of-control public spending that One Nation has warned about for years.

This is only the beginning. This will be the year of rate rises. This is the year of the housing default, where the young Australians that Labor sold their 95 per cent home loans to are hit with rate rises that they cannot afford. This is the year that the full force of Labor's economic destruction comes to the homes of Australia. Make no mistake: the Australian people will not and should not tolerate this failure of a government. It is time for a party that is willing to make hard decisions for the good of all Australians. One Nation is ready to answer that call.

Today, in the Australian Senate, I'd like to give a massive shout-out to the more than one thousand Victorians who turned up on Saturday afternoon for a protest paddle-out against the Albanese government's attempt to open up 25,000 square kilometres of new ocean acreage off the Otway Coast in order to explore for more oil and gas during a time of climate emergency. I'd like to give a special shout-out to the organisers of this event and all the volunteers, especially to Drew McPherson and Damien Cole from Surfrider Foundation—absolutely brilliant job.

While Victorians and Australians, over summer, were being asked to provide submissions to this process, the Otway Coast saw record rainfalls and flash flooding in places, like at Wye River, where tens of thousands of homes were without power for weeks. It was utter devastation for those Australians that were trying to enjoy their summer holiday. At the same time, we had catastrophic bushfires burning on the same coast and also shutting down the Great Ocean Road. Yet, off this coastline, the Labor government wants to explore for more of the exact same product that, when we burn it, warms our oceans and changes our weather.

Well, I'd say to you, today, in the Australian Senate, thank you to all the Victorians who turned up. The next paddle-out will be even bigger. The surfing community, ocean lovers and people who care about climate change and climate action have stopped these offshore oil and gas projects from proceeding before—from PEP-11 in New South Wales, across to Western Australia, to the Great Australian Bight and off this exact coast before—and we will continue campaigning until we transition this country to a hundred per cent renewable energy and stop this crazy attempt to explore for new fossil fuels that is damaging our oceans.

In a land far away, I was 17 years old when I got my first job. I was young, impressionable and ready to work hard to prove myself and put a bit of money away for the future. Back then, wages were modest and super wasn't mandatory, and that was just the way things were. You'd expect that to have changed by now, and it has for adults. But, for 17-year-olds, like I was back then, and for most workers under 18 today, not much has changed at all.

If you're under 18 and you don't work more than 30 hours a week, you're not entitled to superannuation contributions. It doesn't matter how hard you work, how reliable you are or how long you stay in the job. Some employers do the right thing and pay super anyway, and that's fantastic. But the problem is they don't have to, and fairness shouldn't depend on how generous your boss happens to be. The result is that young workers miss out on thousands of dollars by the time they retire—it could be $10,000 or more, which might not sound huge to some, but it's real money, real coin. It's groceries for a year. It's the difference between having a full fridge and worrying about making ends meet.

This is about fairness. The cafes and shops we rely on are staffed by young people that are giving up their after-school hours and weekends. They're working just as hard as the adults beside them—doing the same jobs and doing them well. We like to say Australia has a fair superannuation system, but a fair system shouldn't exclude workers just because of their age. It's time to scrap the under-18 carve-out, get rid of the 30-hour rule and make sure every worker earns super from their first hour of work—no matter how old they are.

I rise today to welcome the National Cabinet's agreement, delivered by the Albanese Labor government, to provide record new funding for Australia's public hospitals. For Western Australia—this is remarkable—it'll deliver an additional $2.4 billion in public hospital funding over the next five years and will bring the total funding for WA hospitals to an estimated $23.4 billion. This will deliver tangible benefits for Western Australians and will take pressure off our hospitals by providing the certainty needed to plan ahead. It will strengthen our workforce and respond to the rising demand, just as our Medicare urgent care clinics are already easing the pressure on our emergency departments. This hospital funding forms part of the Albanese Labor government's broader commitment to Medicare. A big happy 42nd birthday to Medicare.

The time allotted for senators' statements has expired. We will move to question time.

My question is to Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Last July, the Prime Minister stood before Australians and said that inflation had 'turned the corner'. The reality for Australians is inflation is now rising again, prices are higher and families are facing the real risk of interest rates staying higher for longer. Will the Prime Minister apologise to Australians for stating that inflation had 'turned the corner', when the evidence now shows inflation is increasing again under his government's policies?

It is the case that inflation is higher, after those last inflation figures, than we would like. But it is also the case that those inflation figures remain much lower than those that our government inherited when we came to power. When we came to office, I would remind those opposite, I don't recall Senator Cash apologising for 6.1 per cent inflation.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! I do need to be able to hear Senator Wong. Minister Wong, please continue.

As I said, when we came to office inflation was at 6.1 per cent. As importantly—Senator Dowling knows this—it was rising. It was rising. It is now much lower than that. We know Australians are under pressure, which is why easing cost-of-living pressures has been this government's No. 1 priority since coming into government—rolling out cheaper medicines, more bulk-billing, student debt relief, backing higher wages and more tax cuts from 1 July. We can talk a bit more about this, and I hope Senator Cash might return to this issue in her next question, because I think what is interesting is that so many of the things that this government has done to try and deal with cost-of-living relief have been opposed by Senator Cash and the Liberal Party and the National Party.

What is interesting is that they come in here, loudly interject and talk about cost-of-living, meanwhile voting to oppose cost-of-living measures that this government is seeking to roll out for the Australian people. So I think everybody understands which party is (a) a party of government, and (b) a party that is focused only what matters to Australians.

Senator Cash, first supplementary?

So no apology to the Australian people, even though on a daily basis they're living with the reality of your policies: rising costs in their weekly bills and at the checkout? Why can't the Prime Minister simply admit he got it wrong? Inflation hasn't turned the corner. Australians are now paying higher prices, there is greater inflationary pressure and household budgets are now at greater risk.

I again make this point: we have a growing economy. We have inflation that is much lower than that which we inherited and well below its peak. We have wages which are growing at the fastest pace since 2012 and the lowest average unemployment of any government in the last 50 years. We have the smallest gender pay gap on record. We have a record number of small businesses. We have solid business investment, record investment in public hospitals and importantly tax cuts for every taxpayer with two more rounds to come—this year and next. We have rolled out cost-of-living support; energy bill relief; cheaper child care; cheaper medicines; three days of early childhood education; free TAFE; the largest increase in rent assistance; student debt relief for three million; more bulk-billing; free health advice, through 1800MEDICARE; and five per cent deposits, helping 16,000 first home buyers.

Senator Cash, second supplementary?

Minister, do you agree with the Prime Minister's statement that inflation has turned the corner? If you do, on what basis, when inflation is now increasing again and Australian families are bracing for more cost-of-living pain?

I absolutely agree with the Prime Minister, and that evidence is in what I have just outlined, which is the comparison between inflation today and what we saw over many years towards the end of your government. But I do want to make this point: we see the coalition, again—

It's the Liberal Party.

Well, I'm so sorry. You're the Liberal Party. I apologise.

Thank you.

I forget that you're not the coalition. There's no coalition—I'll take the interjection. We see the Liberal Party, the once proud economic managers in this country, unable to articulate a clear economic agenda and unable to prosecute any alternative policy because they are entirely focused on their own internal division. What an indictment that is of a party that used to pride itself on its economic management. They are nowhere when it comes to the economy.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Australians rightly want their government focused on the things that matter to them, like tackling the cost-of-living pressures, strengthening Medicare and making child care more accessible. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering on its commitments to the Australian people?

Thank you, Senator Polley. Australians want a government focused on what matters, and that is what we have continued to deliver in 2026: cost-of-living relief, quality, affordable health care and support for families.

Last Friday, the National Cabinet met in Sydney and reached a landmark agreement to strengthen public hospitals. The government will provide an additional $25 billion for state and territory public hospitals—three times more additional funding than under the last five-year agreement. It's an investment that strengthens Medicare, builds on what we are already delivering, particularly Medicare urgent care clinics, stronger bulk-billing incentives, more Medicare mental health clinics and cheaper medicines for every Australian.

This is a government that is easing cost-of-living pressures. From this month, medicines on the PBS will cost no more than $25. Australians can access free health advice through 1800MEDICARE. From 5 January, every child that needs it will have access to three days of childcare subsidy, with no activity test. That demonstrates that this government, since 1 January 2026, has been continuing to deliver for Australians with support at home and also with advocacy in the world.

The Prime Minister travelled to Timor-Leste last week and agreed to the parseria declaration—the first of its kind between our two nations. This week, I will travel with the Prime Minister to Indonesia, where he will sign the historic Treaty on Common Security agreed with President Prabowo at the end of last year.

This is a Labor government that is focused on delivering in Australia's national interest. We're focused on the things Australians want us to focus on. It stands in stark contrast with those opposite, who continue to focus, almost entirely, on what is happening in their party room and on their— (Time expired)

Senator Polley, first supplementary?

Minister, families around Australia have been focused in recent weeks on getting their kids back to school for another year. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering on the commitment to Australian kids to give them the best education, which they deserve?

Senator Polley and all of us on this side of the parliament have been focused on delivering better education for Australians for all of our time in the parliament. This has been a Labor project over generations: to lift the educational opportunities of all Australians. We believe every kid deserves a great education, and that is what we are delivering. For the first time, we are fully funding public schools, and it is a Labor government that has delivered it. A Labor government has delivered it through the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement. It is the biggest new investment in public schools by the Australian government ever: $16½ billion over 10 years. But we recognise funding is not enough, which is why investment is tied to real reforms that help children catch up, keep up and finish school. (Time expired)

Senator Polley, second supplementary?

Why is it important for the Albanese Labor government to deliver for the Australian people, and what might stand in the way of a good government delivering the outcomes that Australians deserve?

Good government requires focus on the things that matter to Australians, the things Australians care about. It requires a focus on that, not on ourselves. That is what we are doing. That is what Albanese Labor are doing.

What, of course, stands in the way is division, and nowhere is that clearer than in the Liberal and National parties, because the coalition, as Senator Cash poignantly reminded me today, is no more. They've split again—and yet the infighting rages on. We see the blokes lining up to replace Ms Ley. We see the far right and the even-further right battling for control. On issue after issue, they drift further to the extremes. This is the politics of grievance in a party of government, chasing One Nation. You can't be more One Nation than One Nation. In contrast, we are delivering for Australians on the things they care about.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Families in regional Australia are being hit hardest by Labor's cost-of-living crisis, paying more for fuel, groceries, insurance, energy and transport while having fewer services and lower incomes to absorb the blow. Why has the Prime Minister persisted with cost-of-living and energy policies that compound price pressures for regional and rural Australians, who have the least capacity to absorb them?

Senator, I do welcome a question from you. I do welcome a question on regional policy from a Queensland Liberal. I notice the silence at the other end of the chamber on regional policy, so I'm hoping that Senator McKenzie will remedy that at some point. But that is where we part company, Senator McGrath, because I disagree with the proposition in your question.

What I would say to you first is this. Let's recall that it is this government that has supported a pay rise for all minimum- and award-wage workers. That takes the total increase under Labor to over $9,000. You would be aware, I'm sure, Senator, the extent to which there are minimum-wage workers in regional Australia. They will benefit from that. The superannuation guarantee has increased to 12 per cent. We have bonuses for housing apprentices. We have paid pracs for nursing, teaching, social work and midwifery students. And, of course, we had a boost to Medicare. I'm sure you know the extent to which health is an issue in regional Australia and the challenges that so many country towns have in accessing health services. Well, it is a Labor government, not a Liberal government and not the National Party, that is delivering health services into regional Australia. That is the reality.

What I would also say is that, when it comes to energy policy, why there is upward pressure on energy prices is the division and dysfunction that your side of politics engaged in for over a decade. I would remind you that, going back to the 2000s, the National Party also split from the Liberal Party then on energy policy. We are cleaning up the mess. We are bringing renewables into the system. (Time expired)

Senator McGrath, first supplementary?

In regional communities, higher fuel prices and freight costs flow directly into higher grocery prices and business costs. Why has the Prime Minister failed to deliver relief for regional Australians facing higher everyday prices because of freight and fuel costs?

Senator, you would be aware that this government has continued to invest in services for regional Australia and services for all Australians; has continued to advocate for wage increases; and has helped deliver wage increases, including in the care economy, which have benefited Australians across this country. When it comes to energy policy, I would also make this point: we know that what happened when you were in government was that capacity exited the system, and we know that many coal-fired power stations flagged that they were going to retire, and you did nothing about this. We are engaged in a transition. We know it is tough. We know what it has meant in terms of prices, but we are dealing with shifting from a grid and an energy system that was declining to a— (Time expired)

Senator McGrath, second supplementary?

Regional households are facing rising insurance premiums, unreliable energy supply and limited access to services. What does the Prime Minister say to regional families who are paying more for insurance and energy, waiting longer for essential services and being told to 'hang on' when his government's policies are making everyday life harder, not easier?

I'm not sure where to start on that, because there's so much in that that we disagree with, but let's start with services. We have delivered 48 urgent care clinics in regional, rural and remote areas; we have delivered more than 2.5 million bulk-billed appointments in regional and rural areas; and we are reducing HECS debt for doctors and nurses that work in our regions. All of that means that Labour—not the Liberals and not the Nationals—are doing more to deliver health services in regional Australia.

We are investing more money in childcare centres, often in regional Australia, in childcare deserts—areas where there's a lack of supply, which are often in regional Australia. There are 37,000 regional Australians being assisted through the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee. There are 450,000 households in rural and remote regions being assisted through the 45 per cent increase in the maximum rent assistance. The government stepped in to keep Rex operational. These are amongst many things that the government is doing for regional Australia. (Time expired)

My question is to Minister Wong. Minister, late last year, you told the Australian Institute of International Affairs:

Australia will always make our contribution, as part of multilateral efforts to protect civilians and uphold international law—because living in peace shouldn't be contingent on where you were born.

Yet you are now rolling out the red carpet for Isaac Herzog, the President of Israel—a state committing a genocide that has killed at least 70,000 Palestinians, including thousands of children, journalists, aid workers and health workers—a man the UN commission of inquiry said incited genocide. Why are you inviting war criminals to this country, and will you rescind your divisive invitation to President Herzog—something members of your own party have called for?

Put simply, President Herzog is coming to Australia to honour the victims of the antisemitic terror attack at Bondi and to provide support to the Australian Jewish community. It's a visit that comes at a moment of great trauma for many in the Australian Jewish community.

Senator Faruqi, first supplementary?

Minister, you have refused to join the UK, Canada and France in condemning the Israeli government's demolition of UNRWA headquarters in East Jerusalem. You have remained silent as Israel bans Doctors Without Borders from Gaza. Under your watch, we have become a country that has made a mockery of international law. Can you explain how anyone can take your government seriously on human rights ever again?

The Greens political party have, for more than two years, spread misinformation about Australia's position and actions. The Australian government did in fact issue a statement objecting to Israel's actions. We did so at the UN Security Council meeting on 20 January. I note that the Greens political party have ignored this, just as they have ignored all statements that we have made with partners calling for unimpeded humanitarian aid. The Greens political party seek to provoke anger by saying that statements are 'words'. Then they try to provoke anger by saying that there aren't enough statements. I think everyone understands the approach that is being taken.

Senator Faruqi, second supplementary.

Minister, tens of thousands—likely hundreds of thousands—of Palestinians have been killed, over 500 since that farce of a ceasefire. These actions are by a country that you continue to call a friend and to trade weapons with and whose president you invite here. Minister, have you stopped pretending to care at all? Will you next be rolling out the welcome mat for Putin?

I'm not sure that is actually worthy of an answer.

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. The OECD's latest report provides a powerful endorsement of Australia's economic position, highlighting the Albanese Labor government's economic and fiscal strategy, which delivered a soft landing while avoiding a recession and keeping more Australians in jobs. How has the government's responsible budget management allowed the government to manage pressures at the same time as providing cost-of-living relief for Australians?

I thank Senator Grogan for the question and for being part of a united team that's determined to deliver for the Australian people—a sharp contrast with what we see happening over the other side of the chamber. As Senator Grogan says, the OECD's latest report does provide some commentary on how successful the Albanese government has been in navigating some of the economic pressures we've been seeing around the world.

I can see Senator Hume interjecting, and I'm happy to read out the quotes—and there are a number of them—from the OECD about how Australia was able to achieve a soft landing and that we've managed to avoid a recession. Presumably you're all pretty pleased about that over there. This is a favourite for Senator Hume—that is was 'supported by prudent fiscal policy'—and we were able to provide cost-of-living supports to households, and, 'in the absence of this impetus, Australia may well have experienced a recession during 2023-24', showing that the decisions we took at those critical moments to support the economy have been so important.

The economy is growing, wages are up, pay packets are growing at their fastest pace since 2012 and we've got a very low unemployment rate, at 4.1 per cent. We've managed to create 1.2 million jobs—three out of five full-time and four out of five in the private sector—and the smallest gender pay gap on record, as well as a record number of small businesses and solid business investment. We've managed all of that and have been able to invest in those key services, like hospitals, which Senator Wong just took us through, and provided tax cuts, with more tax cuts coming for every taxpayer.

Senator Grogan, first supplementary.

That's a lot of very good news. Perhaps I could now ask about MYEFO. The Albanese Labor government identified a further $20 billion in savings, bringing the total savings and reprioritisation since it came to government to $114 billion. How has this approach allowed governments to invest in cost-of-living relief to assist Australian households?

Again, I thank Senator Grogan for the question, because finding savings across our budget has been an important part of our fiscal strategy, and in MYEFO we did find another $20 billion. Compared to when we came to government, the budget position has improved by more than $233 billion over the seven years, debt is $176 billion lower in 2025-26, and we have saved $60 billion in interest costs on that Liberal debt that we inherited. We've managed to deal with real payments growth, and those savings have allowed us to reprioritise, to repair the budget, to pay down debt and, importantly, to build up the services that those opposite spent their entire time in government tearing down, like hospitals, Medicare, early education and care, and schools—all the services that the people of Australia rely upon.

Senator Grogan, second supplementary.

The Albanese Labor government knows how important quality hospital care is for Australians. Last week I know I was delighted to see the Prime Minister reach agreement with the states and territories on additional funding for the nation's public hospital system. How has responsible budget management supported important investments in hospitals and in Medicare to ensure Australians can get the health care when and where they need it?

I thank Senator Grogan for the question. I think all Australians acknowledge that health care and access to health care and affordable health care is a No. 1 priority for all of us, and it has been a focus for the Albanese government, and it is a key part of our ability to provide additional cost-of-living support whilst we deal with the inflation challenge across the economy—investments in urgent care clinics, investments in Medicare and tripling of the bulk-billing rate. We're already seeing the good and positive data coming out of that, with more and more Australians being able to access bulk-billing.

Hospitals are an important part too, and we've reached agreement with the states and territories, provided that additional investment and been able to fund that within making sensible provisions for an agreement like that within MYEFO, and it's because of the approach we've taken—to find savings, to reduce waste, to pay down debt, to deliver surpluses, to lower the deficits—that we're allowed to make these important investments. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. The Royal Commission into Defence and Veterans Suicide found serious issues with the quality, timeliness and effectiveness of health care provided to our veterans. An analysis of over 400 veteran suicides done for the commissioners identified 'a lack of timely access' to mental and physical health services and disparity in medical fees as a core problem. They also pointed to Defence's complex accounting system, ill defined authority and lack of accountability. Can the minister please give me clear examples of what the government has put in place to address the mental health issue of suicide for Australian veterans?

Senator Lambie, I thank you for the question and also for alerting my office of your interest in this policy area. You're right that the royal commission told us a great deal about what veterans required and the shortcomings in the experience veterans had had in the period post service. We are determined to act on it.

The royal commission had a particular focus on the broader wellbeing of Defence personnel, veterans and families, and it was really aimed at preventing harm and supporting early intervention, and the government's approach really reflects that. We have shifted our focus to that lifetime wellbeing accordingly. Some of the concrete actions include the establishment of the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission, and a wellbeing agency will be up and running this year. We've also released a Defence And Veteran Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy.

Critically in the 2025-26 MYEFO the government provided $58.3 million over three years to strengthen mental health support for veterans across the continuum of care. That includes expanded access to mental health treatment plans to provide proactive continuous and connected care for veterans experiencing mental health conditions. Those new arrangements will commence from 1 July 2026. As part of the 2025-26 budget, the last budget, we also extended the Military and Veteran Psychiatry Training Program. That provides psychiatry registrar training placement in military and veteran mental health. That initiative seeks to improve access to psychiatrists who have specialist training in veteran and trauma focused care.

It's also important that we've worked to speed up processing times for claims. What that means, as I'm sure you understand, is that support can flow to veterans faster, and we're working to improve that because we know that that, in turn, has an impact on veterans' mental health.

Senator Lambie, first supplementary?

Thank you for that, because I spent most of my Christmas break finding beds in psych wards for veterans in extreme mental distress. That tells me the department is failing miserably. Can the minister tell me exactly how many psychiatric beds are available across the country right now, and on average how long it is taking to get a bed? I know.

The Department of Veterans' Affairs works with hospitals across the nation to make sure that appropriate mental health beds are funded and available for veterans when they need them. We are conscious of how challenging this is, so, in addition to that, we're working to expand innovative mental health programs that are in the community, which takes some of the pressure off those inpatient admissions. We're also working to improve availability of appropriate training and, therefore, care for veterans through the Military and Veteran Psychiatry Training Program, which I referenced in my answer to your primary question. That of course provides those placements that skill up medical personnel in military and veteran mental health. I want to remind people that, if you are seeking mental health support, a possible contact is to go through Open Arms, which is 1800011046.

Senator Lambie, second supplementary?

The Department of Veterans' Affairs has apparently given contracts to providers of psychiatric care. I know there are two providers. MLCOA is one. The other appears to be a national secret, for god knows what reason. I want to know the name of the other provider, and I want to know why these providers' fees are as much as double or triple the fee of any other provider out there.

Senator Lambie, I'll have to come back to you on the second contractor. I don't have that information with me. But I will say that we do seek to improve access to healthcare services. That includes the information I provided earlier about the $58.3 million over three years to strengthen mental health support for veterans across a continuum of care. I also understand that the Department of Veterans' Affairs is updating a fee schedule for report writing—this has been an area of difficulty for many people—to ensure that payments for reports are more consistent with other equivalent jurisdictions and better reflect actual cost to practitioners.

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Minister Gallagher. Minister, you would have seen analysis released by ACOSS finding that the federal government is spending more on tax breaks for property investors than on social housing, homelessness services and rent assistance combined. Will you commit to sensible reforms to property tax concessions in the upcoming federal budget that would limit the number of investment properties that can be negatively geared and use the capital gains tax discount to actually incentivise new supply?

Our tax and housing policies haven't changed.

Maybe they should.

Senator Bragg, you've opposed and voted against all of the housing measures that we have brought to this chamber to improve housing affordability and access to housing for Australians, so you have no credibility on housing or housing policy at all.

Senator Pocock's question relates to analysis that ACOSS have done. The government works closely with ACOSS across a number of portfolios. I engage with ACOSS as well. We will always work with organisations, particularly when their focus is on driving fairness across the Australian economy. We've done a number of things to improve housing affordability and access to housing and housing security since coming to government, including back-to-back increases in rent assistance. We've also built 5,000 social and affordable homes. There are another 25,000 in planning or construction. Under the Housing Australia Future Fund we've got more housing being announced right around the country. I see that the Minister for Housing is constantly on housing sites or working with housing providers.

As I said at the beginning, our policies in relation to this haven't changed. We remain focused on delivering the commitments we took to the last election, which were to build and drive supply of housing across the country as a way of improving affordability and access to housing for all Australians.

Senator Pocock, first supplementary?

Minister, the ACT is the only jurisdiction not to have a dedicated youth homelessness shelter. In 2024-25, 392 young Canberrans came to homelessness services in need of long-term housing, and only 28 were provided with housing. How can the government afford to subsidise someone's seventh investment property but can't afford to house a 15-year-old with nowhere else safe to go?

The Commonwealth's responsibility through the housing and homelessness agreement is to provide funding for services that are funded and managed through the ACT government, and we have—

Look, when you were in government, Senator Ruston, that government did nothing at all on housing. Whether it be social housing, homelessness funding, building housing or whatever, it had nothing to do with the government.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! I remind those on my left that this is Senator Pocock's question, and your interjections are disorderly and disrespectful. Minister, please continue.

We have come to the housing issue, and we have looked at every part of the housing spectrum. Our investment is 20 times what the previous government spent over an entire decade. Actually listen to that, Senator Ruston. You built 373 social and affordable homes in nine years, and we are on target for 55,000.

Senator Pocock, second supplementary?

Minister, I commend the government's investments in housing, and I note your reference to the Housing Australia Future Fund, but the fact remains that, due to the low rate of youth allowance, young people are being excluded from the new social housing being provided under the Housing Australia Future Fund. To the broader question about our system that is subsidising the one per cent of Australians who own 25 per cent of investment properties while not ensuring young people can have access to social housing, how can your government think that is an acceptable status quo?

Well, we are investing in social housing. That's what we're doing. We are looking at every single way we can make housing more affordable and more accessible, whether you're someone who is homeless and all the way to homeownership. If you look at every intervention we are making across the board, the Housing Australia Future Fund is one aspect of that. The social and affordable homes that we're building with the states and territories are another. The access to five per cent deposits is another way of doing it. Working with the housing sector is another way of doing it.

You're just inflating prices!

Those opposite have no credibility on this. You can interject as much as you like, but the reality is you didn't have a housing minister, you didn't work with the states and territories, and you didn't invest in housing—just over 300 houses in nine years.

Minister Wong?

Could you call Senator Bragg to order, please.

I have called Senator Bragg to order. I have reminded the opposition that this was Senator Pocock's question. Senator Bragg, perhaps in the eight seconds that are left, you could just be quiet.

We look forward to working with any senator who is genuinely interested in the housing issue to continue to improve affordability and access to housing in this country.

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Under Labor, homes are more expensive and harder to find, yet foreign owners are allowed to dodge the vacancy rules and keep thousands of ghost homes off market while Australians struggle to find a home for their families. Documents obtained by One Nation under freedom of information expose Labor's failure to enforce foreign homeownership rules. According to the government records, there are at least 50,000 foreign owned ghost homes across Australia. Worse still, the Treasurer has admitted in writing that foreign owners are evading the rules, with 83 per cent or more not lodging compulsory vacancy reports with the ATO. Minister, why has the Albanese Labor government allowed thousands of foreign owned ghost homes to go unpoliced and unpunished in the middle of a housing crisis while Australian families suffer?

Thank you for the question, Senator Bell. We have actually banned foreign buyers from buying existing homes, and we have a number of other responses in relation to immigration and ownership of housing, or foreign ownership of housing, that the relevant ministers are managing right now. Every time this issue is raised at estimates—and it has been raised by Senator Roberts and others—the explanation, advice and evidence from Treasury is that this is something they watch carefully and closely and that there are, as you say, rules around it and that it forms a very, very small part of the overall homeownership arrangements in this country. I can't verify the data or the information you've used in your question, but my advice is that foreign investors make up 0.8 per cent of new and established dwellings purchased transactions in the last data I have, which is in the 2023-24 year. If you look at numbers, that is just over 4,000 transactions out of a total of 538,861 transactions. That is the advice from the ATO. If there is anything further I can provide in relation to the substance of your question, I will endeavour to do so.

Senator Bell, first supplementary?

(—) (): I'm happy to also assist in providing some correspondence between Senator Hanson and the Treasurer in relation to this. Off these figures, there are up to $8 billion in potential fines that have not been prosecuted by the Albanese Labor government on this topic. Minister, can you advise the Senate again how many homes in Australia are owned by foreigners, and, in the last financial year and given the Treasurer now admits foreign owners are evading vacancy rules, will the minister advise the Senate how many fines— (Time expired)

Sit down!

Senator Ayres! That was seriously rude. Minister Gallagher.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! The chamber has obviously not heard that I did call the minister to answer, but there's so much chatter across the chamber that you didn't hear and therefore you continued to interject. Minister Gallagher.

There are rules around foreign investment in residential property, and the government expects those rules to be followed and enforced. As I said, based on the latest data I have, foreign investors account for approximately 0.8 per cent of property transactions of new and established dwelling purchases in Australia and total foreign investment in residential real estate has significantly dropped since its peak in 2015-16. In 2023-24, the ATO's residential real estate compliance investigations identified 688 cases for investigation, 602 were completed, and found that 141 properties were in breach and 66 of these resulted in divestment.

Senator Bell, second supplementary?

Minister, Australians need more housing, but Labor's weak enforcement of protection protects thousands of these foreign-owned ghost homes instead of Australian families. Will Labor put all Australians first and adopt One Nation's permanent ban on foreign purchases of Australian homes, not just new homes, or will you keep propping up a loophole-ridden system that locks Australian families out of homeownership?

():  I don't want to start my answer with a question, but I would put a similar question to One Nation, which is: would you support all of the housing investments that we've brought to this chamber to actually drive housing supply so that the people you represent, whether it's the Housing Australia Future Fund, social and affordable housing, rent assistance or any of that—every single measure that we have brought to this chamber to get support to drive an increase in housing supply, which is the single best thing we can do to increase access and affordable housing in this country, my memory is that One Nation has voted against it.

In relation to foreign investment, we have tightened the rules. There is compliance action underway. It forms a very small part of the residential housing market—0.8 per cent.

Senator Bell interjecting—

Senator Bell, we could do a lot more together if you voted for some of the measures that we've brought here.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. It's been more than three years since the government's Secure Jobs, Better Pay reform passed the parliament. How much have wages risen since these reforms came into effect? And how is it helping everyday Australians with the cost-of-living challenges?

Thanks, Senator Sheldon. As Senator Sheldon well knows, the Albanese Labor government is focused on delivery—delivering on our commitments and delivering real cost-of-living relief for Australians, delivering better pay and conditions for workers around the country—because that is a key part of supporting Australians with cost-of-living pressures. The Secure Jobs, Better Pay Act was passed by the Albanese Labor government in December 2022 to improve wages, reinvigorate enterprise bargaining, address the gender pay gap and improve job security.

Now, as a result of these reforms, workers covered by enterprise agreements are enjoying the strongest wages growth in the nation. The latest employee earnings and hours survey shows workers on enterprise agreements earned an average of $1,746.10 per week in May 2025, and that's $153.30 more than in 2023, before that legislation passed. This 9.6 per cent rise is the biggest increase across all methods of settling pay. More than 4.5 million people now have their pay set through enterprise agreements, highlighting their importance in Australia's wage-setting system and the effectiveness of Labor's Secure Jobs, Better Pay Act reforms. These figures show the Same Job, Same Pay reforms are delivering not only for all Australian workers but also specifically for working women. Women on enterprise agreements earned an average of $1,542.30 per week—12.4 per cent more than the average across all methods of setting pay for women. This reflects the role that good-faith bargaining plays in supporting better pay and financial security for women across the workforce. This data clearly shows the Albanese government's reforms are helping workers on enterprise agreements experience the strongest wage growth across all forms of setting pay, and it shows the Albanese government has got wages moving again to help Australians with their cost-of-living pressures.

Senator Sheldon, first supplementary?

Thank you, Minister; that's making a real difference. Minister, wage increases are of top priority for the Albanese Labor government in supporting Australian families. How important is it for wages to continue to keep pace with rising costs, and what would be at risk if wages were cut?

Thanks again, Senator Sheldon. It is absolutely vital that Australians' wages continue to rise, particularly for low- and middle-income earners. Lifting wages is a key part of our government's laser-like focus to reduce the impacts of cost-of-living pressures. But, at every stage, we've seen the Liberal Party oppose any measure we've put forward to increase the wages of working Australians. They voted against our reforms in the last term, and current Leader of the Opposition, Ms Ley, has said she absolutely wants to start a new battle with us over industrial relations. Now, we know Ms Ley is certainly fighting many battles on many fronts at the moment, and that's just within her own party room. We saw that on display last week when her own shadow ministers were caught on film in their own boys'-own adventure plotting against Sussan Ley's leadership mere hours after Senator Paterson had rung into radio to back Ms Ley on radio. There he was with Senator Duniam and Senator O'Sullivan, plotting to dump the first woman leader of the Liberal Party. 'If you don't support the leader, you stand aside—' Ted's words, not mine.

Senator Sheldon, second supplementary?

While it's vital that Australian workers are being paid what they deserve for their days at work, it's even more vital that they have a job in the first place. Minister, can you outline how many more Australians are in work now under the Albanese government and why the dignity of having a job is so important?

There are currently more than 14.6 million Australians in work, which is a record number of Australians in work, with unemployment falling to 4.1 per cent. While the Albanese government is focused on the jobs of Australians, we know that the only jobs the Liberal Party are focused on are their own. Today we read about the current opposition leader's pitch to the Nationals, to get back together. The key condition is that—

Senator Scarr?

On direct relevance, there's absolutely no relevance. I'm sure Senator Sheldon must be very disappointed the minister isn't being directly relevant.

Senator Scarr, you don't stand up and have a debate. Minister Watt, I will direct you back to Senator Sheldon's question.

The key condition of the jobs deal for the three rogue senators is that they be benched—off the front bench for six months after breaking shadow cabinet solidarity. I was thinking to myself, 'What was another example where we saw three people sidelined for breaking the rules of the game?' And there it was: sandpapergate—that infamous time when we saw three of Australia's top cricketers sidelined for months after being banned for ball tampering. Now we see, in here, Senator McKenzie as the new Steve Smith, the leader who should really know better. Senator McDonald is David Warner, urging him into a scrap. And poor old Senator Cadell is Cameron Bancroft, the new guy who's been led astray. You are focused on your jobs. We're— (Time expired)

My question is for the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Minister, this afternoon the Reserve Bank board increased interest rates by 25 basis points. How much will this rate rise increase monthly repayments for someone on an average mortgage of $600,000, and how much extra is this a year?

I thank Senator Paterson for the question. I am not here to give individual mortgagees financial advice on how much—

It depends on the terms of the mortgage and the amount of the mortgage, clearly. What I would say is that no-one with a mortgage will be happy with the decision of the bank today. I'm just reading through the statement by the Monetary Policy Board, which I'm sure you've all read as well. It does go to the issues that have fed into making their decision today.

Senator Paterson?

On direct relevance, the question was about how much more someone on an average mortgage will pay. If the minister doesn't know, she should just say so.

Senator Paterson, the minister is being relevant.

Minister Gallagher, please continue.

That wasn't what I said, Senator Cash. But anyway—on the issue of the bank and their decision today, my quick reading of this, as it's come into question time, is that a lot of the concerns of the bank, in making this decision, have related to private demand growing more quickly than expected. That's why the decisions this government's taken, about how we can provide cost-of-living help to households, much of which you've opposed—whether it be in Medicare, in cutting student debt, in tripling the bulk-billing rate or in some of the energy rebates, which have come off now. This has been our entire strategy: to manage some of the inflation challenge and provide cost-of-living help to households to help them deal with some of that cost-of-living pressure that they've been under. That is the strategy that we had when we came to government, when inflation was running at six per cent and accelerating. It's the strategy that we continue to focus on as we deal with the inflation challenge across the economy.

Senator Paterson, first supplementary?

IFM Investors chief economist Alex Joiner said today:

We already have fiscal policy getting looser, but it could be even looser than we expect. The fiscal guard rails have come off.

Minister, if even industry super thinks you have a problem, isn't it clear that the government's arrogant and stubborn refusal to even acknowledge the problem of government-spending fuelled inflation means every Australian mortgage holder and renter will today pay the price?

I also note that economists, if you got them all in a room—I think, if you got 10 economists in a room, you'd have 10 different answers. What I would also say back to you—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! Senator Paterson was heard in silence, and the minister will also be heard in silence with her answer. Minister Gallagher, please continue.

What this government has done is improve the budget by $233 billion. We've found $114 billion in savings, something that those opposite were never able to do. And your plan, going into the last election, was higher taxes, lower wages, bigger deficits and more debt to build those nuclear power stations. Aren't we lucky that that plan wasn't pulled off?

Opposition senators interjecting—

Minister Wong?

I'd ask you to call Senator Ruston to order.

I did call Senator Ruston. There were quite a few interjections, so she may not have heard me. I repeat once again: please allow the minister to answer, with silence from the chamber.

Perhaps I'll finish with the RBA's Statement on monetary policy. They say:

The near-term upward revision is driven by private demand …

They say:

The contribution of public demand to year-ended GDP growth has continued to ease in recent quarters, as expected.

Senator Paterson, second supplementary?

HSBC chief economist Paul Bloxham said:

… the primary driver of the pick-up in inflation is not strong demand. To the extent that demand is playing much of a role, it is that public demand growth has been strong, due to government spending.

Given the Prime Minister and the Treasurer took credit for rate cuts, do you now accept responsibility for this rate rise?

On government spending, we have delivered the first back-to-back surpluses in almost two decades, something that the governor herself has drawn attention to as being helpful. We have returned 70 per cent of all tax receipts to the bottom line, when you only returned around 40 per cent. Debt is $188 billion lower in 2024-25 than what was forecast prior to the 2022 election, saving $60 billion in interest costs. And we have managed to restrain average real annual spending growth to 1.7 per cent over the seven years to 2028-29. That is the budget doing what it needs to do. Responsible budget management—

Senator Ruston, that was extremely rude. You're not at a football match. If I haven't seen the senator on his feet, the clerk would advise me. Senator Paterson.

On direct relevance, the minister has not yet said whether the government accepts responsibility for the rate rise.

There was more to your question than that, and the minister is being relevant.

We have taken decisions in the best interests of the economy, to manage the budget in a responsible way, to find savings and to make investments where we need to make those investments—in areas like health, in areas like payments for people on low incomes, in areas like housing and dealing with climate change. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator McAllister. Delivering cost-of-living relief and accessible, quality health care is a key priority for the Albanese Labor government. Last week the Prime Minister secured a historic funding deal to deliver record funding to state and territory hospitals and secure the future of the NDIS. What has the government done to deliver high-quality health services for all Australians through the National Health Reform Agreement?

Thank you, Senator Whiteaker, for that question, because last week's agreement really matters. It means $25 billion in additional funding for our public hospital systems. It means that the Albanese Labor government will deliver three times more additional funding for public hospitals than under the last five-year agreement, supporting the doctors and the nurses who are the backbone of our public health system. It means that, under this deal delivered by the Prime Minister, Commonwealth funding for state-run hospitals will reach a record $219.6 billion in the period to 2031.

While those opposite have been entirely focused on themselves, meeting in shuttered rooms and trying to work out a way to depose their first female leader, our government—the Albanese government—has been focused on delivering better health services for Australians. That should be good news for every Australian because it means people get the quality public health care that they need. It also means that our government can take the next steps to secure the future of the NDIS. Our government will work with the states and territories to target annual cost increases of five to six per cent so that this life-changing scheme is here for the long term, with $2 billion matched by the states and territories to deliver the first phase of foundational supports: Thriving Kids.

I want to pay tribute to the work done by Minister Butler and Professor Oberklaid to establish that national model for Thriving Kids. I want to assure the mums and dads—and the broader disability community—that we have listened to them. We will make sure that states and territories have enough time to roll this out. The rollout will now commence from 1 October 2026, with full implementation by 1 January 2028.

Senator Whiteaker, first supplementary?

On this side of the chamber, we want all Australians to access high-quality care where and when they need it. How is the Albanese Labor government working to help relieve pressure on state hospital systems in delivering high-quality care for all Australians?

We are expanding the availability of free urgent health care. There are now 122 Medicare urgent care clinics open across Australia. Australians have made more than two million visits to Labor's free Medicare urgent care clinics. One-third of those patients are kids under the age of 15. Think about all those mums and dads who've been able to go there rather than to the hospital to get support for their children.

Nearly half of the patients who attended a Medicare urgent care clinic would have used a hospital emergency department if no clinic were available. Thirty per cent of visits to Medicare urgent care clinics have taken place on weekends; 25 per cent of patients have attended after 5 pm on weekdays. These clinics are filling a gap in our health system that those opposite did absolutely nothing to address.

Senator Whiteaker, second supplementary?

We know that delivering high-quality primary care will take pressure off local hospitals. How is the Albanese Labor government making sure that every Australian can see a GP so that they don't have to go to a local hospital?

In May last year, the Australian people voted for a government that would stand up for public health care and for the principle of universal health care. We made that commitment to the Australian people, and we're keeping it. The Albanese Labor government has delivered the largest ever investment in the history of Medicare. Since our investment started on November 1, there are now 3,200 Medicare bulk-billing practices nationwide. Over 1,200 of those clinics were previously mixed billing. It makes such a difference. It means more people will be able to see a GP and fewer people will have to resort to sitting in their local emergency department. That is what delivering for Australians actually looks like. So, while those on the other side have spent all this time entirely focused on themselves, we have been focused on the needs of the Australian people.

I ask that further questions be placed on notice.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to all opposition questions without notice asked today.

As I kick off, I'd like to first assist our mathematically challenged Minister for Finance, who didn't know the answer to what a 25-basis-point rise and a cash rate of 3.85 per cent was going to cost an average mortgage holder. It will cost your average mortgage holder with a $600,000 mortgage an additional $100 a month. In case the maths is too hard for you, that's $1,200 a year, Minister. That's what I would like to take note of—the fact that this Labor government has ignored the increased cost because of this interest rate rise for all mortgage holders around Australia and anybody that has a debt, in fact, whether it be a car loan, a personal loan or a home loan. That's going to go up for them. That's the cost of living in action.

This rate rise was no accident. We knew it was coming. We knew it was coming because inflation went back up again. Why did inflation go back up again? It's pretty simple. Inflation went back up again because there is too much demand in the economy caused by public spending. What causes public spending? Labor causes public spending. It's pretty clear. This economy is not serving Australians well. These guys will tell you all about what a great job they're doing, but you don't need to go too far to speak to the average Australian and find out that they are hurting right now. Households are going to have to make decisions. Because of this rate rise that's happened under Labor, they're going to have to make decisions about what to cut out of their family budgets. Electricity has already gone up 38 per cent, but its due to go up another 24 per cent just this year alone. Rents are up 22 per cent. Health has gone up. Food has gone up. Insurance has gone up by 39 per cent. Education has gone up by 17 per cent. It's no wonder that this cost-of-living crisis, which has dragged on and on under Labor, is hurting average Australians.

At the same time, we're seeing economic growth stagnating. In fact, the only thing that's been propping up economic growth has been immigration that has run well out of control. It's an extremely badly managed immigration system. In fact, GDP per capita has gone backwards under this government. At the same time, we've seen productivity go backwards as well. So actually increasing economic growth without driving further inflation is becoming harder and harder.

The tax settings in this country are sucking the life out of our entrepreneurialism, innovation and aspiration. We've got budget deficits as far as the eye can see. There is not a budget for the next 10 years that is not forecasting a deficit. What does that mean? That means that the government is planning to spend more than it earns. Can you imagine a household out there that, for 10 years, said, 'We're going to spend more than we earn'? That's what Labor are doing. That's what they're planning on. That means that debt rises higher. I think we've now hit a trillion dollars. I'm pretty sure we've hit a trillion dollars in debt, and it's rising to $1.2 trillion. It's not this generation that's going to pay for it; it's the next generation. It's our children. It's our grandchildren. This is happening on Labor's watch.

What has the Treasurer said about this? You'll be pleased to know that he's really thought long and hard about this! There have been sleepless nights! Do you know what he said today? He said that it was the fault of people who had taken holidays that inflation was rising. He actually said that it was driven by a 'Christmas spendathon' by individuals and families. So, if you took a holiday, it's apparently all your fault that inflation is rising, not the government's. He hasn't taken responsibility for that. In fact, he hasn't taken responsibility for anything. Actually, he loves it when inflation goes down. He loves it. That he takes responsibility for. When interest rates go down, when inflation goes down, that's all Jim. That's all the Treasurer. That's all his good work. But, when inflation goes up, when interest rates go up, that's got to be somebody else's fault. And any time somebody criticises him, well, that's 'politically motivated'.

He was criticised by a very well-respected economist in Shane Oliver from AMP, who said that government spending is fuelling inflation and that's causing interest rate rises. Do you know what the Treasurer said? He said, 'Well, that's politically motivated.' I would be very interested to know whether all of those economists out there are politically motivated. Do you think that Paul Bloxham from HSBC is politically motivated? Is Richard Holden from the University of New South Wales politically motivated? Is Luci Ellis from Westpac politically motivated? Is Alan Oster from NAB? Is Chris Richardson, a very well-respected, independent economist, politically motivated too? What about Pradeep Philip from Deloitte? What about Stephen Anthony from Macroeconomics Advisory or Cherelle Murphy from EY? Is Alex Joyner from IFM, from industry super? Is he politically motivated? How about the Parliamentary Budget Office? They were the last people to call out Labor's lies. (Time expired)

The opposition emoting and waxing lyrical about the cost of living is honestly a little bit rich. Why? I was here in the first term of this government, and I remember that they voted against every single cost-of-living measure that this Albanese government put forward to this parliament. It's a bit rich and disingenuous that they would stand here and profess to actually care about the Australian people. We're a government who understands that Australian families, households and businesses are under pressure. The cost of living was the dominant issue in our first term of government. Unfortunately, we are still dealing with an inflationary hangover. That is evident. We understand that millions of Australians will be disappointed with this interest rate rise, but we're a government that is not here to emote. We are here to actually do something about this and support Australians during this period.

What are we doing about that? There's a whole suite of measures that I can describe. Health care has been a big area of action, as has housing, after a decade of Liberal and National neglect—I was about to say coalition, but they're not that anymore. I don't know what they are. We're acting on the skills shortage, which was absolutely forgotten about after a decade of drift under the Liberals. Of course, we're acting on wages.

If we just take one area, health care—an area I can speak about; I have some experience in health care—we have, with $8½ billion, pumped in the biggest investment in Medicare's 42-year history. Medicare is a great Labor legacy. It was borne out of the Hawke government—incredible vision—and before that was Medibank. It was resisted all the way through by the Liberals. They thought that free health care was ridiculous, that no-one should have universal health care. That is not the vision that a Labor prime minister, Bob Hawke, had. With that $8½ billion, we are actually seeing green shoots of recovery in bulk-billing. Since this rolled out on 1 November, we've seen about 1,300 clinics take up bulk-billing. Imagine that: going to see your doctor, and you don't have to pull out your credit card, just show your Medicare card.

We've also rolled out 120 urgent care clinics which have now seen 2.2 million presentations. A third of those presentations are actually kids. These are clinics that are open from morning till evening, usually seven days a week, and they're staffed by local doctors. They're walk-in, you don't need an appointment, and they're bulk-billed. The tests or diagnostics that are ordered at these clinics are also bulk-billed. So, of course, families with children are flocking to these clinics. Imagine, on a Saturday, when you've got a footy injury or some other ailment—maybe it's a sick child running a high temperature or gastro—and you don't want to be queuing up for hours in the emergency department. You can go to your urgent care clinic. Victoria now has six of these clinics open, and there is another one that will be open in Stonnington East, in my old electorate of Higgins. These clinics have already seen a six per cent reduction in emergency department presentations in Victoria. That is how we take pressure off our public hospitals, by providing options for Australians in the community.

We rolled out cheaper meds. Cheaper medicines are now $25 per script as of 1 January. It hasn't been that low since 2004. That was the lowest that it was, and it's again $25 per script.

In addition to that, we are looking after those one in seven Australian women who have endometriosis, with 33 endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics that have been rolled out throughout the country. These clinics are providing lifesaving care to women who have been forgotten, unheard by the medical profession. Endometriosis is not a condition that I was ever trained on when I went through med school, but we have elevated it thanks to a near $1 billion investment in women's health by this Albanese Labor government.

In addition to that, we have a pretty comprehensive program on mental health supports. As of a few weeks ago, Medicare mental health check-ins started. This is worth googling. It's an online digital resource which is available when you need it and where you need it, and it's evidence based. We know that there is more to do. But we are not just talking about it; we are acting. (Time expired)

How insulting! How insulting that, while Australians have just heard that interest rates have been increased, all we hear about from the government is bulk-billing, which is harder to find than a Labor government that knows how to spend your money well and reduce spending. I tell you what, that is absolutely disgraceful, and it is gaslighting in its highest form.

Last July, the Prime Minister stood before Australians and said that inflation had 'turned the corner'. That is not what the RBA said today. We are going to see it go up and up this year, as we will interest rates. Those opposite would have the Australian public believe that everything is fine and that you can rely on your Medicare card to get through this cost-of-living crisis. I don't know one person that has found a bulk-billing place yet. Every time you turn up, you have to turn up with your credit card. It is an absolute fallacy. Do not believe those lies. Australians are smarter than that. They can feel this cost-of-living crisis. They have seen their bills go up. Their energy bills have gone up by thousands of dollars while those opposite promised time and time again that they would go down. They were promised that fuel, food, health care and houses would be affordable, and we keep seeing them go up and up.

This government will not take responsibility for this. Treasurer Jim Chalmers is the first to take credit when interest rates fall, but when they go up he puts the blame on you—on good Australians who are working hard. He said it is because you spent too much money at Christmas time. How offensive is that! The RBA itself has said that the government is spending too much. We know that interest rates will always go up under a Labor government, but of course it's never their fault. Dr Jim Chalmers needs to be honest with the Australian people about why those interest rates rose today and why they will continue to rise under this 'spend now, pay later' government, because the effect is that Australians are poorer. Our living standard is dropping. I think this is the first time in modern Australia that the next generation will be handed a poorer standard of living.

The simple economic principle of supply and demand needs explaining to those opposite. When you drastically curtail the supply of goods like energy and houses through excessive regulation, sky-high taxes and ideological inflexibility, that supply goes down. When you have an immigration system that is out of control and not bringing in highly skilled, democratically valued migrants, the demand for those limited goods absolutely skyrockets. Over a million new arrivals in Australia have pushed Australians out of the housing market and into residence stress. We have record ramping issues at our major hospitals. Congestion and transport constraints are hurting commuters and freight in every major city in the country. Labor has no solution, only spin, and the regions are hurting the most. The great Australian dream of owning your own home is dead for young Australians, and these Labor ministers are the ones who killed it.

We hear about the poor economic management from this government, and all Australians see is our prime minister at the Australian Open with his son, on taxpayer dollars, enjoying himself as they try to work out their budgets while inflation is up, prices are up and interest rates are up. Families aren't spending; this Labor government is. And, when Labor spends, you pay.

I rise to take note in this debate—about the economy, the cost of living and the difference between a government that is doing the work and an opposition that has completely lost the plot. What we have heard today is a decision that was widely expected, but that doesn't make it any easier, and I want to put on record a comment from the Hon. Dr Jim Chalmers, the Treasurer, who is an excellent treasurer, I might say. He said:

We know that many Australians are doing it tough, which is why we continue to roll out responsible cost-of-living relief, including a further tax cut this year and another one next year …

Right now, Australians are not asking for theatrics by the opposition. They're asking for stability, they're asking for help with bills, and they're asking for a government that knows what it's doing. That is what this Labor government has delivered.

When we came to office—it's important that those opposite are reminded of this because it appears, by the contributions that have been given thus far, that they've completely gone down some sort of memory hole in terms of the past, when they were in government—we inherited a budget that was weighed down by debt and excuses after a decade of big talk, very little discipline and no plan for what came next. What did we do? We delivered budget surpluses. We turned Liberal debt into Labor surplus—not by cutting Medicare and not by telling Australians to tighten their belts. We did it through responsible economic management, careful savings and clear priorities, and that matters because good economic management is not an abstract idea. It's what allows a government to help people when cost-of-living pressures bite. Make no mistake: cost of living is our No. 1 focus.

Every policy we have delivered asks the same question: does this make life easier for Australians right now? That is why every taxpayer received tax cuts, with another, as I have said, coming in July this year. That is why minimum and award wage workers have seen pay wage rises that total more than $9,000 under Labor. That is why student debt has been cut by 20 per cent, saving the average graduate $5½ thousand. That is relief, cost-of-living relief, which was delivered by their Labor government. We have rebuilt Medicare because health care should never feel like a luxury item. Bulk-billing has been expanded, with more than 1,300 practices now fully bulk-billing again. Medicare urgent care clinics have already delivered free care to more than two million Australians.

As of today, this Labor government has saved Australians more than $14 million through cheaper medicines alone, and that saving will continue, which will deliver more than $200 million back into household budgets every single year. That's cost-of-living relief. That's the sort of relief that those opposite scoff at. That delivers savings directly back into household budgets every single year. You feel that relief when you pick up your medicine script, and you feel it when you go to the doctor and you don't have to pull out your credit card.

We've expanded paid parental leave to 24 weeks and have paid super on it. These measures are all about supporting families and they are all about supporting households. We've introduced paid prac for nursing, teaching, social work and midwifery students, and we've expanded five per cent deposits so first home buyers can get a foot in the door.

We will keep the focus where it belongs, on the people we represent. We will not focus on ourselves, like those opposite. (Time expired)

I rise to take note of the government's refusal to address the acute pain it is causing Australians as a result of today's interest rate rise of 20 basis points. The cost for the average mortgage of $600,000 is an additional $100 a month, or $1,200 a year. Yet, when the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher, was asked what that average cost would be, she refused to answer the question. Senator Hume put that directly to her and raised the same question. She said it depended on the terms of the mortgage agreement.

When news of the interest rate rise broke during question time, it was like the emperor with no clothes—nothing to see here. There's nothing to see here because what we know now is that this is another very, very strong sign of this government's economic incompetence—its failure to run the economy. We heard those on the other side say, 'Oh, yes, we know Australians are disappointed.' Australians are more than disappointed; Australians have been betrayed. There have been 13 rate rises in less than four years. The price of economic incompetence by the Albanese Labor government is a nation going off the cliff.

There are debt and deficits as far as the eye can see, and for Senator Brown to talk about the surpluses is a joke. There are billions and billions of dollars of deficits facing this country. The country is $1.2 trillion dollars in debt, and we are seeing the worst living standards in this country for a very long time. Labor has presided over the biggest collapse in living standards in the developed world, while fuelling its addiction to spending. This spending is driving up the cost of living today and leaving that $1.2 trillion debt bomb for the next generation.

Australians have lived and breathed the cost-of-living crisis in this country as a result of this government. Insurance is up 39 per cent, energy is up 40 per cent, rent is up 22 per cent, health is up 18 per cent, education is up 17 per cent and food is up 16 per cent. Can you imagine all those young Australians right now who are desperately wondering how they're ever going to be able buy a house under this government.

This is the great Australian dream which has been destroyed by this government, and now this is another nail in the coffin. This has been something that's been taken up by economist Judith Sloan. What an insult that Labor, which used to care about working people, about supporting those who most needed the help of government, is now rolling out all these schemes which are not means tested. The five per cent deposit scheme—which, of course, was a very successful means tested program under us—is now being opened up to any Australian no matter how much money they have in the bank, or no matter how much money their parents have in the bank. We know that this scheme alone is driving up house prices.

The cost of living keeps getting worse under Labor and is not helped by government spending which is putting upward pressure on inflation. IFM Investors Chief Economist, Alex Joiner, has said 'the fiscal guardrails have come off' with spending now at its highest level outside of recession in 40 years. Even business groups, like ACCI, are calling on the government to cut spending. The average mortgage holder is already paying around $21,000 a year more in interest than they were under the previous, coalition government. Another interest rate hike is another nail in the coffin for so many Australians struggling to put food on the table, to pay the mortgage and to have that great Australian dream of homeownership. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

I rise to take note of the minister's response to my question. The Labor government have now stopped even pretending that they care about Palestinians or international law or even international aid. The Labor government want us to believe that they rushed through their reckless, divisive, dangerous and antidemocratic laws in the name of unity, protection against racism, and social cohesion, but the Albanese government are hypocrites, banging the drum of unity while doing the most divisive thing possible by laying out the welcome mat for Isaac Herzog, head of a state committing genocide. You don't fight racism by rolling out the red carpet for war criminals. Isaac Herzog is a man found by the UN commission of inquiry to have publicly incited genocide. This is a man who autographed bombs used to flatten hospitals, murder children and destroy entire apartment blocks indiscriminately, yet Labor and Liberal politicians are falling over themselves to justify his visit.

We are now officially a state that not only appeases but welcomes war criminals, a state that no longer believes in international law. Labor's deceit and dishonesty are there for everyone to see. While pretending to crack down on selective racism and hate, they do nothing to stop the ultimate expression of racism—genocide and apartheid. We are now a country where the political class would rather destroy our democratic civil and human rights and make a mockery of international law than take meaningful action against genocide, war crimes, hate and racism. Israel has massacred and dehumanised Palestinians for decades and is on a genocidal mission to erase them. Labor has refused to sign a statement with Canada, the UK, France and other countries, condemning Israel for demolishing UNRWA headquarters in East Jerusalem.

The Prime Minister hasn't yet ripped up Trump's invitation to join his farcical and imperial Board of Peace, but people in this country—people who take their moral responsibilities seriously, unlike the Labor government—will not let Herzog's visit go unchallenged. We should be arresting Herzog when he sets foot in this country, not rolling out the red carpet. Labor: it is absolutely disgraceful what you are doing, and you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That private senators' bills be considered this week as follows:

(a) Housing Australia Amendment (Accountability) Bill 2025, on Wednesday, 4 February 2026; and

(b) Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) Bill 2024, on Thursday, 5 February 2026.

Question agreed to.

I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 305 for today and business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 for tomorrow.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator Lambie for 19 and 20 January 2026, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to the following senators:

(a) Senator Cadell for 3 February 2026, for personal reasons; and

(b) Senator McDonald from 3 to 5 February 2026, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator Steele-John from 3 to 5 February 2026, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 25 December 2025 of the Hon. Nick Bolkus, a former minister and senator for the state of South Australia from 1981 to 2005. I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate records its sadness at the death, on 25 December 2025, of the Honourable Nick Bolkus, former Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Administrative Services, Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Multicultural Affairs, and senator for South Australia, places on record its gratitude for his service to the Parliament and the nation, and tenders its sympathy to his family in their bereavement.

I begin by offering my personal condolences, and those of the government, to Mary, to Aria, to Mikayla, to Nicholas and to all who knew and loved Nick Bolkus. Nick Bolkus was a leader in shaping modern multicultural Australia. He was a giant of the Australian Labor Party in South Australia, a driving force of progressive politics in our state, and a powerful advocate for multicultural Australia who broke barriers as the first Greek Australian to serve as a cabinet minister. Many of us in South Australia in Labor looked up to him and were guided by him, including me.

As Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, he changed countless lives. He helped give practical effect to the Whitlam government's earlier renunciation of the White Australia policy, and, in doing so, Nick Bolkus changed the face of our nation. He made us more open, more tolerant and stronger.

Nick was elected to the federal parliament as senator for South Australia in 1980, and he served as a cabinet minister in the Hawke and Keating governments across a range of portfolios, from consumer affairs to immigration and multicultural affairs.

Nick Bolkus's life story is the story of modern multicultural Australia. He was born in Adelaide on 17 July 1950, the son of Greek migrant parents. His parents came from Kastellorizo, a small Greek island in the eastern Mediterranean, just over a kilometre from the Turkish coast. Like so many from Greece and beyond, the Bolkuses left in search of security and of opportunity, travelling to Australia in the difficult years between two world wars. Their journey was hard. They travelled in steerage, cooking for themselves over small burners for months at sea before eventually arriving in South Australia. They first settled in Port Pirie, where Nick's father worked on the transcontinental railway line. From there, the family moved to the west end of Adelaide's CBD and later moved to West Beach. Here, Nick grew up surrounded by other migrant families building new lives, often with little more than determination and hope for a better life for future generations.

Nick Bolkus became synonymous with Adelaide's western suburbs—a part of the city shaped to this day by a dynamic mix of migration, industry and beach-side life. Like so many migrant kids, he grew up acutely aware of the sacrifices his parents had made and of the barriers they had faced. Nick attended Adelaide High School, where he excelled academically—the first in his family to finish high school. As he would reflect on in his valedictory to the Senate in 2005, the western suburbs of the 1950s and 1960s offered few obvious role models for a political career, but he was moved to public life by admiration for the reforming Labor governments of Dunstan in South Australia and Whitlam federally. Nick went on to study law at the University of Adelaide—again, the first in his family to attend university. This sort of opportunity was exactly what his parents had in mind when they left Greece.

Nick became involved in the Labor movement as a teenager, helping deliver campaign material in electorates with strong migrant communities. His early political engagement was practical and grounded in organising, persuasion and community connection, values he would hold true to throughout his career. Growing up as he did in working-class migrant communities, Nick Bolkus knew better than many the tensions of assimilation and identity. He knew what it meant to straddle two worlds, and he understood how easily people like his parents could be marginalised. These experiences drove his lifelong commitment to multiculturalism, to social inclusion and to democratic participation.

From the outset of his political career, Nick Bolkus established a reputation as a formidable intellect and a quietly spoken but always effective parliamentarian. He combined intellectual rigour with an instinctive understanding of politics as a practical craft, and he quickly emerged as a senior figure within our party, respected for both his command of detail and his strategic judgement. Nick was appointed to the Hawke ministry in 1988, serving initially as Minister for Consumer Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer for Prices. In these roles, he focused on strengthening consumer protections and ensuring that economic reform was balanced by fairness and accountability. His approach reflected a consistent theme throughout his career: markets must serve the public interest, and government has a responsibility to protect those without power.

In 1990, Nick entered cabinet as Minister for Administrative Services, a role in which he oversaw significant reform to the machinery of government, and he was committed to improving transparency, efficiency and integrity in public administration. He understood that trust in our democratic institutions depended on their ability to function fairly and that people must sense this in their everyday lives. But it was during his time as Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, from 1993 to 1996 in the Keating government, that Nick made what I believe was his most enduring contribution. In this portfolio, Nick played a central role in shaping modern multicultural Australia. He approached immigration policy with a blend of humanity and hope combined with a heavy dose of pragmatism. He understood migration as being essential to our economic vitality, to our cultural richness and to our international standing. He believed above all else that migration policy must be grounded in dignity and in fairness.

Alongside his immigration responsibilities, Nick also served as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Multicultural Affairs. Nick Bolkus believed deeply in the benefits of migration and multiculturalism to our people and to our nation, a belief grounded in his own family and grounded in his lived experiences. Nick was a strong advocate for multiculturalism as official government policy at a time when it was both transformative and contested. He knew that multiculturalism is not an abstract ideal but the lived reality for millions of Australians. It is one that has enriched us a nation and has made us stronger. After the defeat of the Keating government in 1996, Nick continued to serve with distinction in senior opposition roles, such as shadow Attorney-General, shadow minister for justice and shadow minister for environment and heritage. As shadow Attorney-General, Nick Bolkus played a central role in the longest ever debate to take place on a single bill in this place. The debate on the Howard government's amendment to the Native Title Act went for over100 hours. Nick himself moved over 900 amendments on behalf of the opposition.

Nick Bolkus remained a central figure in parliamentary debate and party leadership until his retirement in 2005. For Nick Bolkus, the Labor Party was not simply a vehicle for power nor a tribal identity only, although it was both those things. It was also a moral project, one rooted in fairness, opportunity and progress. In his first speech to this place, he outlined what Labor meant to him:

The Australian Labor Party is the oldest political party this country has and every other political party has been a reaction to it. … It is the Australian Labor Party which has provided the real benefits of being Australian and living in Australia. It is the Australian Labor Party which has consistently and without hesitation fought for the rights and aspirations of Australians. It is the only political party which has the interests of Australians at heart.

Nick believed deeply in Labor values. He shaped them and he lived them, and he was a leading figure in our party, particularly in our left faction in South Australia. His guidance and mentorship in my younger years, and as a new senator, were formative. Nick Bolkus played a key role in delivering the stability that has enabled our party to be so successful in South Australia in recent decades. He sought to deploy power not only for its own sake but rather in the interests of working people.

As many people have remarks since his passing, Nick was particularly proud of his role in one decision as minister. In the wake of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, Nick was central to the Hawke government's decision to grant permanent residency to almost 40,000 Chinese nationals—predominantly students. At a time when fear and division could so easily have prevailed, Nick Bolkus had the courage to advocate for compassion anchored in principle. This was not without political risk, but it was right, and history has vindicated that choice. Those who have stayed have contributed profoundly to Australia's economic, intellectual and cultural life, but, beyond that outcome, the decision matters because of what it said about us as a nation—that we could act with humanity and extend protection to those who needed it, and that we could put our values into action.

You see, Nick Bolkus understood something that is so important: government decisions do not only determine outcomes. In a democracy they also declare who we are. In his valedictory speech in 2005, Nick described politics as an ongoing 'learning experience'. He reflected:

It was so easy when I first got here. There was East and West, the Cold War, the Berlin Wall, fixed currencies, no internet and, indeed, no mobile phones.

But Nick Bolkus knew that time stops for no one, in this place or in any other. He knew that our role is to face the future and to do what we can to shape it towards fairer and more just outcomes. He said:

As I learnt very quickly in this environment, I had to engage and develop my attitudes if I was to be of any relevance to the national political agenda. Defending and maintaining the status quo was not a sustainable option. Defending the status quo, in this age of mobility, is more likely to mean embracing irrelevance.

Nick Bolkus loved our state. He loved South Australia with that fierce, unpretentious loyalty familiar to so many of us. Nick loved Adelaide's western suburbs, its beaches, the communities along them that shaped him and, of course, Joe's kiosk at Henley and the West Adelaide Football Club. He was proud of his state, and he was proud to represent it. And his daughter Aria continues that legacy, standing for the state seat of Colton at next month's South Australia election.

The last few years of Nick's life were difficult for him and for those who loved him, as he faced major health challenges. His daughters, Aria and Mikayla, spoke lovingly at the state memorial service on 22 January about helping care for their father; about the insights Nick imparted and the small shared moments of love and laughter that sustained them; and about how his experience of our healthcare system only strengthened his commitment to universal health care.

Nick Bolkus's contribution to Australian life is enduring. He helped build a more open, respectful and compassionate nation. This is a proud legacy. I pay tribute to a remarkable Labor man, and I extend, again, my sincere condolences to Mary, Aria, Mikayla and Nicholas and all those who knew and loved Nick Bolkus.

I rise on behalf of the opposition to acknowledge the passing of the Hon. Nick Bolkus, a former senator for South Australia and a former minister of the Commonwealth who passed away on Christmas Day at the age of 75. On behalf of the opposition, I extend condolences to Mr Bolkus's wife, Mary; to his children, Aria, Mikayla and Nicholas; and to his family and those close to him. We recognise the loss they have experienced.

Nick Bolkus served in this parliament for almost 25 years. First elected to the Senate in 1980, he represented South Australia until the conclusion of his term in 2005. Over that period, he was a consistent presence in this chamber, and he held a range of parliamentary and ministerial responsibilities. Born in Adelaide in 1950, Nick Bolkus, as we've now heard, maintained a strong connection, and a passionate connection, to South Australia throughout his life. He represented his state for more than two decades and took a close interest in issues affecting its people and its institutions. Before entering parliament, he trained as a lawyer, graduating with a Bachelor of Laws from the University of Adelaide. His legal background informed much of his parliamentary work, particularly in relation to legislation, committee processes and scrutiny of executive decision-making.

Nick Bolkus was appointed to the ministry in 1988, initially serving as the Minister for Consumer Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer for Prices. He entered cabinet in 1990 and later held portfolios including administrative services; immigration and ethnic affairs; and Minister assisting the Prime Minister for Multicultural Affairs. These portfolios were administered during a period of significant change, and he approached them with a strong focus on policy detail and administration.

During his time as Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, he emphasised the rights and responsibilities associated with citizenship and Australia's democratic framework. As we have heard, one decision from that period that has been widely noted was his involvement in allowing Chinese nationals to remain in Australia following the events at Tiananmen Square in 1989. That decision formed part of Australia's response to an international crisis and remains a significant moment in the history of our immigration system.

After the change of government in 1996, Nick Bolkus continued to serve in parliament in opposition, including in a number of shadow ministerial roles, including shadow Attorney-General and shadow minister for justice, environment and heritage. In those roles, he was an active participant in parliamentary debate and scrutiny. He also made an extensive contribution through Senate committee work, serving on committees dealing with legal and constitutional affairs; foreign affairs and defence; scrutiny of bills; privileges; and estimates. These committees, as all senators know, play a critical role in the functioning of the Senate, and his long involvement reflected his commitment to that work and to this place.

Nick Bolkus was known in this place as a direct and determined debater, strongly committed to advancing his party's positions. At the same time, colleagues have noted his willingness to engage with parliamentary processes and his preparedness to share experiences with others in the chamber.

A parliamentary career places considerable demands on those who undertake it and on their families. Today we acknowledge the support provided by Nick Bolkus's family over many, many years of public service and the loss they now feel. Nick Bolkus served during a period of substantial change in Australian public life. He approached his responsibilities with seriousness and consistency, whether in government, in opposition or in committee work. On behalf of the opposition, I again extend condolences to his family, friends and former colleagues. His service to this parliament and to the people of South Australia is acknowledged.

On behalf of the Nationals, I rise to join fellow senators in acknowledging the passing of Nick Bolkus, former senator for South Australia, and to place on the record our appreciation for his service to the parliament and to the people of South Australia. Nick Bolkus died peacefully on Christmas morning aged 75. He was a South Australian senator from 1980 to 2005 and the first Greek Australian cabinet minister, under the former prime ministers Bob Hawke and Paul Keating.

Nick served as Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and later as Minister for Consumer Affairs and Minister for Administrative Services. He was a passionate believer in the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. In keeping with the ancient Greek philosophy, he was also passionate about our democracy. Senator Bolkus's work reflected a clear understanding of the economic and social importance of strong regional communities to Australia's national prosperity, with a special interest in immigration. Most notably, during his time as immigration minister, as Senator Wong outlined, Senator Bolkus allowed thousands of Chinese nationals who arrived in Australia before the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre in Beijing to permanently settle along with their relatives, a totemic decision for which our nation is grateful.

He was a formidable contributor to debate and a senator who took seriously the responsibility of proudly representing his state. He was also a key factional figure in the South Australian Labor Party and a key mentor for some of those opposite. He also played a strong role in modernising administrative services and public sector management. Though his political philosophies were not exactly aligned with the Nationals, Senator Bolkus was a strong advocate for strong competition laws and consumer rights. He was sympathetic to strong section 46 laws under the former Competition and Consumer Act, where the misuse of market power provisions are outlined. He was supportive of truth in advertising and fair trading enforcement and expressed strong concerns about vertical integration and market dominance, especially where it harmed small business or vulnerable communities, such as those of new arrivals. Any friend of stronger competition laws is a friend of the Nationals because what is fairer for consumers and producers is a fairer society. Following his Senate career, Senator Bolkus served as Australia's ambassador to Greece until 2002.

Only a short while ago our party lost former senator Ron Boswell, and I note the AFR's political correspondent Phill Coorey's comments over the weekend that 'we're losing all the good ones'. I completely concur with those comments. We're losing a generation of senators who left an indelible mark on our democracy, on this chamber and on their respective political movements, and we are poorer for them leaving us. On behalf of the Nationals, I wish to extend our sincere condolences to former senator Bolkus's family, friends and former colleagues and to acknowledge his contribution to Australia's parliamentary and public life.

I'd like to add my condolences to those already shared in the chamber for a wonderful South Australian and South Australian senator, an advocate for our state, an advocate for multicultural Australia and an advocate for our wonderful natural environment. We know, of course, that Nick Bolkus was passionate not just about his family and the local beaches and the environment but about what type of country we are and want to be. The leadership he showed following the Tiananmen Square massacre was significant. We should remember, at these types of times, that that type of leadership has been done, can be done and is needed, and we should reflect upon the courage at the time of political leaders to make the right decisions for humanity and for future generations. As the shadow environment minister in the year 2000, Senator Nick Bolkus attended the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. I note that way back then, he was talking about the need to cut carbon emissions and to do more in relation to our climate. He was a visionary. He was able to see the problems as they were, understand where the community was and do his best to bring people along with him.

In summary to this condolence, I actually wanted to read some words that have been written by the former Australian Greens leader Bob Brown, who worked closely with Nick Bolkus at various times, particularly in relation to not only the environment but also human rights: 'Nick Bolkus was considerate, friendly and a good negotiator. I especially remember his smiling demeanour the day in 2001 when I stood up in the House of Reps on the visiting of the US president George Bush Jr. There was a lot of condemnation, but Nick, sitting across the aisle, kept up a knowing and reassuring smile as the uproar continued. After all, Labor also opposed the illegal invasion of Iraq. He was a minister whose ability to talk over contentious issues without rancour was outstanding and rewarding. Vale Nick.'

I wish the best for his family—I know this is a really tough time. Know that our thoughts are with you and the party that he loved so much.

I rise today to pay my respects to a giant of the Australian Labor Party and the architect of the modern, multicultural Australia that we know today. I associate myself with the comments of Senator Wong.

The day before Christmas last year, I visited my friend Nick Bolkus in Adelaide with my new son-in-law, Lawrence Ben, where we were able to say our goodbyes for the last time to Nick. He passed away peacefully with his family around him the next morning, Christmas Day 2025. Nick and I had become friends over a long period and worked together to stabilise the South Australian branch of the Australian Labor Party, which had been divided by factional disputes for more than 10 years. This relationship resulted in the SA Labor branch focusing on its efforts to defeat the Liberals rather than fighting amongst ourselves. That stability has resulted in the ALP being the party of government for all but four of the last 24 years. I think that's Nick's greatest political legacy. Of course, his personal legacy would be so much more significant to him: his wife, Mary, and his children, Nick, Mikayla and Aria. As Senator Wong pointed out, Aria is running in the state election for the state seat of Colton, and Nick would have been so proud of her and so disappointed not to be there to see her win in a few weeks time.

I first came across Nick as a young lawyer working for the shop assistants' union in Adelaide in the 1970s. Nick wanted a political career, and the Labor Party rules back then required you to be a member of your appropriate trade union. Nick worked in his father's deli in the West End of Adelaide, and he tried to join the shop assistants' union. This was not well-received by the then secretary of the union, Ted Goldsworthy, fearing a potential left-wing challenge to his leadership. Nick never got his membership of the shop assistants' union. My next contact with Nick was in—

That's the way we do it. The next contact with Nick was in 1988, when I was running in the by-election for the federal seat of Adelaide. Nick, by then a Keating minister, was a terrific support. Unfortunately, I lost, but we became friends, both being members of the West Adelaide Football Club. In 1993, we went to Nick's house in Henley Beach to celebrate the 'true believers' election, which kept Nick in the Keating ministry as one of our greatest immigration and ethnic affairs ministers. Do you remember that? It was a great night. We lost the seat of Adelaide, but we kept government. It was after Paul Keating's loss in 1996, when working with a young Patrick Conlon—Nick's staffer—that the relationship that has resulted in the stability of which I spoke earlier was built.

After he left parliament, Nick set out to help South Australian companies prosper, which he did very, very successfully. He engaged a young Lawrence Ben, a member of Labor's left wing at the time, and convinced him that he should be a member of Labor's right wing. Of course, Lawrence followed Nick's advice, and Lawrence and Nick became great friends. Nick was a mentor to many young MPs in South Australia and was always a good source of advice. He was also a sage observer of politics, predicting that Labor would win the 2014 South Australian election when everybody else had given up. After his stroke some years ago, my wife and I would take Nick to his favourite restaurants: the Thai Orchid at Henley Beach and Enzo's on Port Road.

I was honoured to represent the Prime Minister at Nick's private funeral at the Greek Orthodox community church in Franklin Street. The church was packed with his family, members of the Greek community and all of Nick's friends. It was one of two funerals that we attended that week, the other being that of Tim Picton. I and my wife offer our deepest sympathies to Mary, Aria, Mikayla and Nick.

I rise also to contribute to this condolence motion. When we lost Nick Bolkus, Australia—and South Australia in particular—lost one of its truly great political figures, the Australian Labor Party lost one of its great sons and the Greek Australian community lost a great man of state who, as others have described, was one of the architects of our modern multicultural project. Progressives across all of Australia lost a great advocate, because Nick Bolkus was someone who was always ahead of the curve.

His legacy is full of things that, today, we simply take for granted. He was the first Greek Australian to enter the ministry. He introduced some of the first laws of any jurisdiction in the world to protect the privacy of ordinary people against credit data agencies. He introduced the banking ombudsman so that ordinary Australians had someone to stand up for their interests when it came to misconduct from the big banks. He helped streamline our national food standards. He introduced legislation for the disclosure of political donations. He was, alongside Prime Minister Hawke, a key architect of the decision to give refuge to thousands of Chinese citizens in Australia after 1989. That is just a small snapshot of his very extensive record in government. In it, you can see someone laying the foundations of Australia's modern consumer protection, disclosure and migration arrangements, enshrining principles of equality, openness, procedural fairness and nondiscrimination. They are all things that we now take for granted in our expectations about how corporations are required to treat ordinary people and how governments operate. The freewheeling world of the 1980s and the 1990s was a world that wanted government out of society. Nick, in insisting on protections, was well ahead of the curve.

I want to make another important point about former senator Bolkus. It is one thing to be ahead of the curve in government, with a ministerial office, the departments of state and executive power behind you. It is another thing to take those steps from opposition, with limited resources and an important and consequential calculus about how far you can go and what risks you can afford. I was drawn to politics in the eighties and the nineties by the very big debates that were occurring about the protection of Australia's environment. This of course will be shocking to people in this chamber, but there was, at that time, still quite a hot debate, a controversial debate and a contested debate about the reality of climate change and the scientific consensus around greenhouse gas emissions, and that was even true in the Australian Labor Party at that time.

Some shadow environment ministers might have been tempted in that environment to take the easy option, to try and balance the needs of competing stakeholders and to not take a stand on a thing that really mattered, but that was not the approach taken by Senator Bolkus. When you read the contributions that he made in the Senate during his time in that shadow environment portfolio, you can see him castigating the Howard government as it walked away from the Kyoto protocol and you can see him raising the alarm about Australia's carbon emissions at the start of a new millennium. You can see him calling for Australia to be a genuine bridge builder and take an active role at an event, which was quaintly referred as the conference of the parties at The Hague, and to support international action to reduce emissions.

I should acknowledge that being a shadow environment minister can be a tough job, and in one case it involved the then Labor candidate for the seat of Richmond, who I concede was me, putting the shadow minister in a pretty battered Troopcarrier, driving him out to the rainforest out the back of Murwillumbah alongside an overly enthusiastic local activist and requiring him to climb a very steep mountain through subtropical rainforest in suede moccasins as the humidity hit about 90 per cent. I have since organised better shadow ministerial visits than that! I don't think that that was the program that Nick Bolkus expected. He certainly did not dress for that program, but he bore it with exceptional grace and good humour.

I was very glad that he did take the time to spend some time with me as a young candidate, because, for those of us who were active in environment politics at the turn of the new millennium, he was one of our great, great advocates. We saw in him someone who was ahead of the curve, talking about the necessity to take climate change seriously and talking about our obligations to future generations to leave them a better world. These positions are now actually the consensus positions on climate change right across Australia's public sphere. They are accepted by the Public Service, they are accepted by the business community, and there is a broad public expectation that governments will take action on climate change. But that was never a sure thing, and you can see in the Hansard that Nick Bolkus was one of the key people who made the case for climate action here on the floor of the Australian Senate.

It shouldn't be a surprise that Nick, who blazed such a trail in so many areas of our public affairs, was a mentor to many Labor people. Losing Nick is a collective loss for all of us, but the people who will feel it most are his family, and I want to pass on my heartfelt condolences to his family—to his wife, Mary, and his daughters, Aria and Mikayla—and to the whole South Australian Labor family. Vale, Nick Bolkus.

I also rise to speak on the condolence motion for former Senator for South Australia, the Hon. Nick Bolkus. Elected at just 30 years of age, Nick served during a transformational time in our history. He was a senator for some 24 years, a number which would make more than a few of us tremble looking forward. But he had a lot to do, and he used his time with purpose. As the first Greek Australian cabinet minister, Nick was obviously a staunch advocate for multicultural Australia, helping to shape our country into what it is today. Much has been said in this condolence and in recent weeks about Nick's extraordinary contribution to public life, to this chamber, to multiculturalism and to our democracy. He deserves all of this praise and more, and I want to associate my remarks with those senators who have spoken before me, especially Senators Wong, McAllister and Farrell.

Nick will forever be remembered as a legend of the South Australian Labor branch, as a champion of our state, as a formidable contributor, as a senator and as a cabinet minister. My husband, Clint, and I had the privilege of getting to know Nick when I moved back to Adelaide in 2013 after some time overseas. We both have such fond memories of his dry sense of humour, razor-sharp wit, insights and generosity of wisdom, including to this young woman of the Right. Nick was excellent company, but he was also purposeful. Long after serving in parliament, he continued to do work of meaning for our movement and in support of its people. He did a lot of work in the South Australian branch of the Labor Party, formally and informally. He was a generous mentor to so many from our branch and deeply loved by his colleagues.

I also especially want to acknowledge his staff, who worked with him. My close friend Nina Gerace worked for Nick his entire time as a minister. She has always spoken to me so fondly and energetically about what it meant to work with Nick and his entire team, all of whom were so incredibly loyal to him, and with good reason—staff like Lisa Barker, John Richardson, Dave Richardson, Marianna Serghi, Dennis Atkins, Adam Kilgour, the late Chris Gration, Bronwyn Pollock, my friend Barb Pini, Pat Conlon, James Peikert, Pasquale Gerace, Jacqui O'Brien, Paula Kansky, the late Mick Tumbers in his electorate office, and many more staff who I haven't mentioned and apologise for not mentioning.

I have it on good authority that another senator at the time coined the phrase 'Bolkus and the Bolkettes' to describe Nick and his staff—this is so very eighties. But, as well as being a sign of the times, it also demonstrated that our movement's youngest, brightest, most energetic and smart staff wanted to work for Nick Bolkus because he was a reformer, he was doing work of purpose and he was a good man. Those of us who've been staff in this place and formed those close relations know what it means to be working for someone doing work with purpose and how meaningful that it is, too. To all of his staff, who are also grieving for Nick: I acknowledge you and your contribution to his incredible work and legacy in this place.

Of course, no-one will miss Nick more than his beautiful family. My deepest condolences go to Mary, Aria, Mikayla and Nicholas. Aria has described her father as her 'best friend'. She said: 'He fought for what he believed in because he truly believed in the movement. He gave back so consistently because he never forgot where he came from.' Through Nick's children, his legacy lives on—in their deep respect for public service and fierce work ethic. I see this every day in Aria's campaign as a South Australian Labor candidate for Colton. Even in her grief, she shows up every day, determined to work hard for the Colton community that she loves and in which her father raised her.

To Nick's beloved family, his friends, former colleagues, staff and all those who loved him, I offer my deepest condolences on behalf of the great state of South Australia, which he represented with such distinction in this place, and on behalf of the South Australian branch of the Labor Party, which owes him so much.

I also rise today to pay my respects and offer condolences on the passing of ex-senator Nick Bolkus. I'm not going to go over the ground that has already been covered but will connect myself to the comments of other senators on all of his achievements, which are extremely impressive.

His achievements as a parliamentarian and a minister are an excellent gift to this nation. But his skill and dedication as a mentor to the Australian Labor Party is something that sits in the heart of our party and its South Australian branch and will do so forever. In his long and impressive career—25 years—he played such an important role in embedding those Labor values of fairness, inclusion and opportunity into public policy, the national discourse and the future of the Australian Labor Party. He was generous in supporting people coming up through the ranks, both rank-and-file party members and future leaders—not just those on the Left but also those on the Right, as others have commented on. He was a deeply generous man with his time, skill and wisdom. He exemplified and embodied the values that he worked so tirelessly to populate throughout this country.

But he was, as we all know, a devoted family man. I know Nick Bolkus purely through his daughter. The stories of the way he emboldened his family and the way he adored the western suburbs are so deeply impressive. So, my condolences, and the condolences of the Left of the South Australian Labor Party, to Mary, Aria, Mikayla and Nicholas.

May you rest in peace, Nick. And if you're listening, I assure you we will be throwing everything, including the kitchen sink, at Colton, because I know it was one of your last dreams for Aria to represent the place you loved in the western suburbs, and we will do everything in our power to make sure that happens. Rest in peace.

I wish to join with my colleagues in this condolence motion in paying tribute to the life and legacy of the Hon. Nick Bolkus, a man whose contribution to the Australian Labor Party, to the parliament and to our nation was profound and enduring. Although I did not have the opportunity to serve in the parliament alongside Nick, we were members of the same proud tradition within the Labor Party—the Left. I did have the pleasure of witnessing him in action many times at Australian Labor Party national conferences and at numerous gatherings of the National Left. In those forums, Nick Bolkus was something to behold: utterly fearless in debate and driven by an unshakeable commitment to Labor values and democratic principles.

Nick Bolkus is one of those figures whose reputation preceded him, whose influence was felt across the generations of Labor parliamentarians and whose legacy continues to shape the party we are today. Fittingly, as the first Greek Australian to serve as a cabinet minister, Nick Bolkus was a passionate believer in democracy and in the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. He understood, from lived experience, what it meant to belong and what it meant to work for inclusion. His story was also Australia's story—a story of migration, contribution and the enrichment of our national life through diversity.

In every portfolio he served, Nick sought reform, not only for its own sake but to ensure that the instruments and power of government were also used to serve the aspirations of everyday Australians. Whether in immigration, multicultural affairs or other areas of responsibility, he brought intellectual rigour, moral clarity and an unshakeable commitment to fairness. As Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and later as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Nick was both a strong advocate for the benefits of a modern multicultural Australia and a living example of its success. He understood that multiculturalism was not simply about tolerance but about participation, responsibility and shared democratic values. He argued for an Australia that is confident enough to embrace difference while united by common purpose.

Within the labour movement, Nick was respected as a principled advocate and a committed member of the Left. He believed in social justice, in equality of opportunity and in the idea that government has a moral responsibility to act in the public good. These are values that continue to guide many of us who follow after him. For those of us who did not serve alongside him, Nick Bolkus remains a benchmark, a reminder of what principled public service looks like and of the difference that one determined individual can make over the course of a lifetime of politics.

I extend my deepest sympathy to Nick's family—his wife, Mary, and his children—and friends and those who love him. Theirs is a profound loss, and our thoughts are with them at this difficult time. Nick Bolkus's memory will indeed live long in Labor hearts. His legacy lives on in our laws, in our institutions and in the multicultural, democratic Australia that he worked so hard to strengthen. I look forward to the Labor Party celebrating the win of the seat of Colton for Nick Bolkus and Aria.

Question agreed to, honourable senators joining in a moment of silence.

It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 23 December 2025 of Katrina Jane Allen, a former member of the House of Representatives for the division of Higgins in Victoria from 2019 to 2022.

At the request of Senator Hume, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Industry and Innovation, by no later than midday on 10 February 2026, all documents provided to the Minister for Industry and Innovation by the Department of Industry, Science and Resources, from 1 June 2025 to date, that concern the design of the Economic Resilience Program.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government will be opposing this motion. A briefing has been offered on this issue, and I understand that it has not yet been accepted.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 274 standing in the name of Senator Hume and moved by Senator Collins be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, by no later than midday on Thursday, 5 February 2026, the letter the Minister for Housing (Ms O'Neil) signed and dated to Mr Ben Rimmer congratulating him on his appointment as observer of the Housing Australia Board.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government will be opposing this motion. Senator Bragg is now moving orders for the production of documents for congratulatory letters. This has become a vexatious use of one of the Senate's most serious powers and a diversion of the work of the public servants who are busy delivering our ambitious housing agenda.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 303 standing in the name of Senator Bragg and moved by Senator Collins be agreed to.

I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 308 standing in my name.

I advise that Senators Lambie, Tyrrell, Thorpe and David Pocock are co-sponsoring this notice of motion. I move:

That the government business order of the day relating to the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 be discharged from the Notice Paper.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government strongly opposes Senator Payman's motion to discharge the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 from the Notice Paper. This motion to discharge is not about whether you support the bill or oppose it. Senators can oppose the bill in its current form and want to see it amended and still oppose this motion.

This motion is about whether you're up for a debate on actually reforming a broken freedom-of-information system, not just complaining about it on social media for clicks. By supporting this motion to discharge the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill, senators will be shirking a debate on reform of the freedom-of-information system, including the aspects of this bill that those on the crossbench and stakeholders from across the political spectrum claim to support.

An effective freedom-of-information system is critical in fostering public trust in government decision-making through transparency and access to information. The government urges senators to oppose Senator Payman's motion and work with the government to reform a system in dire need of it.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 309 standing in the name of Senator Payman and other senators be agreed to.

I move:

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 311

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, by no later than 5 pm on Tuesday, 24 February 2026, copies of all ministerial submissions, records of conversation, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages created after 1 January 2025 between the Minister for Home Affairs and/or his office, the Department of Home Affairs and the Australian Federal Police in relation to:

(a) the reference of apparent breaches of subsection 327A(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 to the Australian Federal Police by the Fair Work Ombudsman; and

(b) the initiation of investigations or legal proceedings by the Australian Federal Police in relation to apparent breaches of subsection 327A(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 312

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than 5 pm on Tuesday, 24 February 2026, copies of all ministerial submissions, records of conversation, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages created after 1 January 2025 between the Attorney-General and/or her office, the Attorney-General's Department and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to:

(a) the reference of apparent breaches of subsection 327A(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions by the Fair Work Ombudsman; and

(b) the initiation of investigations or legal proceedings by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to apparent breaches of subsection 327A(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 313

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, by no later than 5 pm on Tuesday, 24 February 2026, copies of all ministerial submissions, records of conversation, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages created after 1 January 2025 between the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and/or her office, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and the Fair Work Ombudsman in relation to:

(a) the processing of complaints to the Fair Work Ombudsman in relation to apparent breaches of subsection 327A(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009;

(b) the investigation by the Fair Work Ombudsman of apparent breaches of subsection 327A(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009; and

(c) the reference of apparent breaches of subsection 327A(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 to the Australian Federal Police and Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions by the Fair Work Ombudsman.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government will be opposing these motions. The scope of these orders includes all ministerial submissions, records of conversation, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant electronic messages. It is a fishing expedition and a misuse of one of the Senate's most serious powers.

The question is that general business notices of motion Nos 311 to 313, standing in the name of Senator Payman, be agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Industry and Innovation, by no later than 5 pm on Wednesday, 25 February 2026, copies of all ministerial submissions, records of conversation, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages between the Minister for Industry and Innovation and/or his office, the Department of Industry, Science and Resources and the National Artificial Intelligence Centre in relation to the decision to no longer proceed with the establishment of an artificial intelligence advisory body.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government will be opposing this motion. A briefing has been offered on this issue, and I understand that has not yet been accepted.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 314 standing in the name of Senator Payman be agreed to.

I move:

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 315

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, by no later than 5 pm on Friday, 20 February 2026, copies of all ministerial submissions, records of conversation, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages created on or after 1 April 2025 between the Minister for Housing and/or her office, the Department of the Treasury and the Australian Taxation Office in relation to the ban on foreign investors buying established homes and the effect the ban has had on Australia's housing market.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 316

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than 5 pm on Friday, 20 February 2026, copies of all ministerial submissions, records of conversation, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages created on or after 1 April 2025 between the Treasurer and/or his office, the Department of the Treasury and the Australian Taxation Office in relation to the ban on foreign investors buying established homes and the effect the ban has had on Australia's housing market.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government will be opposing these motions. These orders are written with substantial scope and include ministerial submissions, records of conversation, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages. The orders also seek all of these documents over a 10-month period. We urge the senator to reconsider her motions, particularly when it comes to the scope and time allowed to comply. The senator should also seriously consider the significant amount of time these fishing expeditions are taking away from the important work of public servants.

The question is that general business notices of motion Nos 315 and 316, standing in the name of Senator Payman, be agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than 5 pm on Thursday, 26 February 2026, copies of all ministerial submissions, records of conversation, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages created on or after 30 March 2025 between the Treasurer and/or his office, the Department of the Treasury and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in relation to:

(a) the development of the amendments made by the Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Food and Grocery) Amendment (Supermarkets Excessive Pricing Prohibition) Regulations 2025 to the Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Food and Grocery) Regulations 2024; and

(b) the Government's proposal to legislate a ban on supermarket price gouging.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

This order is written with substantial scope and includes 'ministerial submissions, records of conversation, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages'. We urge the senator to reconsider her motion, particularly when it comes to the scope and time allowed to comply. The senator should also seriously consider the significant amount of time these fishing expeditions are taking away from the important work of public servants.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 317 standing in the name of Senator Payman be agreed to.

Senator Paterson has submitted a proposal, under standing order 75, today, as shown at item No. 14 of today's Order of Business:

The need for action to address the worsening cost of living crisis facing Australian families and small businesses, driven by persistent inflation and higher interest rates, and exacerbated by the Government's reckless spending and policy failures—including on housing—which are keeping prices and mortgages higher for longer.

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for action to address the worsening cost of living crisis facing Australian families and small businesses, driven by persistent inflation and higher interest rates, and exacerbated by the Government's reckless spending and policy failures—including on housing—which are keeping prices and mortgages higher for longer.

Today is a tough day for many Australian households, particularly those with mortgages, because they've received the news of the 13th rate rise on Labor's watch. They've received the news that their mortgage repayments will be going up. For many Australian families, this is not the news they were promised. This is not the news they were expecting, because they've heard our Prime Minister, and our Treasurer, Mr Chalmers, tell them that the worst is behind us, that better times are ahead, that they've slayed the inflation dragon and that they've got it under control. But nothing could be further from the truth.

The truth is, the average Australian household is $21,000 a year worse off than they were when it comes to mortgage repayments than when Labor came to office. That is, someone with an average loan of $600,000 is paying $21,000 more a year on their repayments because of interest rate rises that have happened on this government's watch.

This government has presided over three interest rate reductions. When those happened, Jim Chalmers was very quick to take credit, very quick to say that it was as a result of the government's economic management that rates were coming down. But now that rates are rising again he's even quicker to say that he bears no responsibility, that the Albanese government bears no blame and that others are to blame—that international factors are responsible are for rising inflation.

The problem with that story is that it's not true. In fact, Australia has some of the highest inflation among advanced economies—higher than the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, Germany and many others. While their rates are falling, our rates are rising, and it is very clear why. You can ask any economist what the effect of Labor's reckless spending is and they will tell you that with spending at a 40-year high outside a recession, as a proportion of the economy, that is driving upward pressure on inflation and that is leading directly to interest rates increasing today.

Take, for example, Judo Bank's Chief Economic Adviser, Warren Hogan, who said:

But if the governments of Australia do nothing, I think the RBA is going to have to take the cash rate above where it was a year ago—above 4.35 and most likely towards five and put this economy at risk of recession.

They have to do that though if the government of Australia will not act.

Or take AMP Deputy Chief Economist Diana Mousina, who said:

… it appears that directly, the government has been adding to inflation in recent years, as you would expect in an environment of public spending lifting to a record high.

Take AMP's Chief Economist, Shane Oliver, who said last week that a lot of the factors driving inflation relate to government spending. Even Alex Joiner, the chief economist of IFM Investors—which is, of course, a vehicle of the industry superannuation industry—has said:

We already have fiscal policy getting looser, but it could be even looser than we expect. The fiscal guard rails have come off.

And HSBC Chief Economist Paul Bloxham said yesterday:

… the primary driver of the pick-up in inflation is not strong demand. To the extent that demand is playing much of a role, it is that public demand growth has been strong, due to government spending.

These are the expert opinions that Jim Chalmers would like to dismiss as partisan, but I don't think these economists are partisan, and neither are economists at the RBA, who have made many similar observations in recent months, or, of course, the RBA governor herself, who acknowledged to me in Senate estimates recently that, all else being equal, if government spending is rising then that drives up pressure on inflation and therefore interest rates.

When it comes to this government's wasteful spending, sometimes it's the small things that tell the story and sometimes it's the big things. We learnt recently that the government spent $1.6 million renovating a party room for their Greens partners here at Parliament House—that is, one room in Parliament House and $1.6 million to tune it up to the circumstances that the Greens expect. When you can build a brand-new home, a perfectly nice family home, for $400,000 to $500,000, it seems extraordinary to me that Labor thinks $1.6 million is good value for taxpayers' money. Or take the CSIRO, which was recently exposed as having spent $500,000 on manicured lawns and rented pot plants. This is an agency that employs botanists in-house and so could probably manage to water a plant if required. Then there is the big one, the EV tax uptake, which was supposed to cost $90 million this financial year but has blown out by 15 times to $1.35 billion.

The truth is that when Labor spend you pay. This is a government that's failed to control its spending. That's why rates have risen today and that's why you will pay.

I rise this afternoon to oppose the urgency motion moved by Senator Paterson. Frankly, I think it's extraordinary that those opposite still can't seem to remember all the great things our government has done to help with the cost of living—although I probably shouldn't be surprised, because they've been a bit distracted recently. What's really clear to me and I think what's becoming increasingly clear to Australians is that, while the Liberal Party and the National Party are focused on fighting themselves, our government is the only party that is focused on delivering for Australians, the only party that has the capacity to be responsible economic managers and the only party that is committed to bringing down the cost of living.

Australians are seeing support from our government at the pharmacy counter, with our cheaper medicines policy bringing the cost of pharmacy scripts down to $25, the lowest it has been since 2004. Australians are seeing support when they go to the doctor, thanks to our bulk-billing incentive. They're seeing support with their childcare bills, with our three days of guaranteed child care. They're seeing support in their pay packets, with our plan for further tax cuts, with the tax cuts we've already delivered and with the higher wages that Labor has delivered. University students are seeing support from our government, because we have cut their HECS debts and reduced the amount at which they have to start repaying them.

Senator Paterson and his colleagues like to talk about housing, but they seem to forget a really crucial fact. The coalition—sorry, they're not the coalition anymore. That is my mistake. We're going to have to keep reminding ourselves of that as things change day by day. The Liberals and the Nationals have opposed every single housing initiative that we have brought before this parliament—yes, every single one. They have opposed our measures to build more homes. They have opposed our measures to get more people into their first homes. They have opposed our investment in social and affordable housing. The absolute hypocrisy from those opposite to come in here and talk to us about housing! They complain about housing affordability, yet they have not presented a plan to this place or to the Australian people as to what they would do when it comes to making housing more affordable.

I want to talk to the decision by the RBA today to lift interest rates. This, of course, is not news that we were hoping for, but it is news that we were expecting. We know that, for many Australian families, it is difficult news. We understand that this increases pressure on Australian families who are trying to pay mortgages. That's why our government is committed to continuing to roll out cost-of-living relief. We will not stop, and we will continue to do what we can to help. There are further tax cuts to come later this year, and, at the same time, we're doing what we can to strengthen the budget and address our longstanding productivity challenge. Our midyear update showed that the budget is more than $233 billion better off than when we came to government. We have found more than $114 billion in savings since coming to office, including $20 billion in last year's midyear update.

We are committed to undoing the mess that we were left by those opposite. When we came to government, inflation had a six in front of it. It's really clear to me—and I think it's clear to Australians right across this country—that those opposite should perhaps spend some time, instead of fighting each other, supporting our government's cost-of-living measures and supporting our housing affordability measures.

I must say it is pretty rich of the Liberals—the party most closely aligned with the one per cent—to talk about the cost of living. I am really sick and tired of the Liberals, the Nationals and Labor lecturing people about a cost-of-living-and-housing crisis that their governments created and their governments continue to perpetuate. It is hypocritical, it is hollow and it is cruel. When ordinary people are suffering, the Liberals turn up like charlatans in the town square, claiming to have answers, but they are selling the same snake oil they always do: racism, fear, hate and blame. They talk about solutions but offer only scapegoats: migrants and minorities. And Labor is cut from the same cloth, just with different marketing. Labor, the Liberals and the Nationals all claim to stand with ordinary Australians, but their actions tell a different story. When it comes time to act, relief flows in one direction only—upwards to the big banks, to landlords, to coal and gas giants, and to billionaires. They protect corporate profits and refuse to tax obscene wealth. This is not an accident. These parties defend a broken housing system, which lets speculators pocket millions while first home buyers and renters suffer.

Today's interest rate rise is pure profit for the big banks while mortgage holders and renters are being pushed deeper into pain. None of the big parties can claim the moral high ground while fanning the flames of hate and blaming migrants, exactly like One Nation does, and making matters worse for ordinary people. We need structural change to overhaul an unfair economic system so that it starts working for the 99 per cent. (Time expired)

Australians were promised that, if they worked hard and played by the rules, they could get ahead. That promise is broken—broken by a government that refuses to live within its means. Australians don't resent hard choices; they resent being punished for doing the right thing. That is why this urgency motion is before the Senate today. Why is inflation persistent? Why are interest rates going up? It's because we have an arrogant government that refuses to rein in its own spending. This is not theoretical. Australians are seeing the ramifications every single week at the check-out, when the power bills arrive, when the rent is due and when the mortgage payment comes out of their account.

Inflation is now sitting at 3.8 per cent, well above the Reserve Bank's target range. Core inflation remains elevated and higher than that of most other developed economies not because Australians are spending too much but because Labor is. This did not happen by accident. Since Labor came to office, the Reserve Bank has been forced to lift interest rates 13 times as of today. That is the price Australians pay when government spending runs out of control. A family with an average mortgage is now paying around $1,800 more every month than they were before Labor took power. For many households, that is the difference between saving and falling behind. That is the cost of inflation that is allowed to persist.

A government that will not restrain itself has no right to ask Australians to tighten their belts. Australians are paying more for everything. Food prices are up 16 per cent. Rents are up 22 per cent. Insurance is up 39 per cent. Electricity prices are up nearly 40 per cent without rebates. This is not relief. I don't know who says it is, but this is not relief; this is regression. Under Labor, Australians have experienced the worst collapse in living standards in the developed world. That's not something to be proud of. Real wages are lower than when Labor took office. By international comparison, this is the worst decline in the developed world. Small businesses are being hit from all sides. Input costs are rising. Energy prices are higher. Demand is weakening. Some 40,000 businesses have gone insolvent on Labor's watch. Many are family-run businesses that can no longer keep the lights on. When they fail, families lose incomes and workers lose jobs.

The common thread running through all of this is—surprise, surprise—spending. Labor's government spending is now at its highest level outside of a recession in 40 years, growing from 24 per cent to around 27 per cent of GDP. Debt is on track to hit $1.2 trillion. Interest on that debt now costs taxpayers $50,000 every minute. Every dollar spent servicing debt is a dollar taken from Australian families.

Housing has become a major driver of inflation, and government failure is making it worse. Supply is near its lowest level in a decade. The result is higher prices, higher rents and fewer opportunities for young Australians to own a home. Australians are not asking for short cuts; they are asking for a government that understands aspiration and respects effort. They want small businesses treated as the backbone of the economy, not as an ATM. A core responsibility of any government is to protect the living standards of its people, and this government has failed that test. This Labor government's cost-of-living crisis is exactly that—it is a crisis.

A government that spends without restraint today steals opportunity from the next generation. When Labor spending runs out of control, Australians are paying, families are paying, small businesses are paying and, unless this government changes course, future generations will pay the price. That is why this urgency motion must be debated and why Australians are watching how this government votes today. (Time expired)

I'd like to thank Senator Paterson. I know there's a lot going on on the far side of this chamber and a lot going on behind the scenes as they try and work out who they are. But, while those opposite are fighting amongst themselves, focusing entirely upon themselves, on this side of the chamber, the Albanese Labor government is focusing on Australians. It's focusing on real, practical things that need to occur to make things better for people on the ground, who are doing it tough. We recognise that people are indeed under quite a lot of pressure, and we have done so ever since we were elected in 2022. But we are doing something about it.

We brought in tax cuts—tax cuts last year, tax cuts this year and tax cuts the year after that. We're slashing student debt, making it easier for our next generation to build themselves for the careers they need to give them the stability to build their future. We've made significant changes in the health space, with more urgent care clinics and cheaper medicine and better opportunities for people to be the healthiest they can be, to rely on Medicare when they need it, to be able to afford the medicines that they need and to be able to afford to see a doctor when they need to. These are the things that are genuinely making a difference to the hip pockets of every single Australian out there.

The MYEFO showed, just a couple of months ago, that the budget is now more than $233 billion better off than it was when we inherited it. Yet, from listening to those over there, you'd think that things had got worse. No, no—in terms of how we're doing economically and in terms of managing how things are going, we are doing much better. We've found more than $114 billion in savings. We have a serious policy, we have a serious plan, and we're rolling it out, while, all the time, every single thing we do in this chamber is a huge fight for those opposite and for those on the crossbench. Maybe it's just a vibe—fighting behind the scenes, fighting in their party rooms, fighting in the corridors and fighting in here. Maybe they don't know how to do it any other way. But over here we are focused on Australians. We are focused on making things better for people out there who are doing it tough. They had ten years—ten long years. When we came to government inflation was at 6.1 per cent and rising, and it is now lower. They left us with higher spending, no savings and bigger deficits. We are going about the process of fixing that. Year on year, budget on budget, we are making a difference.

We're not ignoring the housing problem; we're getting on with the job. I'd like to draw attention to the announcement on the weekend in South Australia, where we had the Albanese Labor government and the Malinauskas Labor government coming together to sign a historic deal that is going to make a fundamental difference to housing access in South Australia—$800 million. That money will not just build houses; it's going towards things like concessional loans so that we can build the water and sewerage infrastructure that we need to be able to expand our housing developments.

Over there, they say nothing's been built. Well, there were 373 houses in a decade under the opposition, as they stand now. I would say that we are beating that, hands down. We've had 10 years of ignoring housing and ignoring what the need is into the future to house our population and ensure the future of our young people. In South Australia, we will be seeing enormous development. With some of that housing being managed under this new deal that was signed on the weekend, people will be moving in as soon as 2027-28. We are making a fundamental difference. We are dealing with the things that matter to people on the ground. Those opposite wasted a decade and left us in an untenable situation in terms of the housing in this country.

The Albanese Labor government has failed to control interest rates. As a result of Labor's reckless spending, Australians will be dealing with higher inflation for longer, and Australian families will pay the price. Today, the Reserve Bank lifted interest rates by 25 basis points, and that means mortgage repayments will jump by around $1,000 extra per year for a $500,000 mortgage. For families across NSW and Australia already struggling with groceries, fuel, rent and power prices, this is a cruel blow—another hit to the household budget from a Labor government that is totally out of touch. While groceries, rent, fuel and power keep climbing, Labor keeps spending. Labor keep pushing their devastating net zero ideology, and Labor keep driving mass immigration higher and higher.

Families are hurting, mortgage holders are stretched to the limit, home buyers are being locked out of the market, and renters are being crushed under the mistakes of this terrible Albanese Labor government. This Labor economy is failing everyday Australians. One Nation is the only party here with a real plan to rebuild Australia for Australians, because One Nation will cut electricity prices by scrapping Labor's net zero agenda and backing reliable coal-fired power, One Nation will end mass immigration to ease pressure on housing, infrastructure and essential services, and One Nation will slash government waste, pay down debt and make sure that your taxpayer dollars are spent where they're needed. One Nation will not allow Labor to continue to inflict this economic pain on Australians. We will hold them to account. One Nation is united. We are ready. We will put everyday Australians first every single— (Time expired)

The first Tuesday of most months is like judgement day for many Australian families out there who are just waiting for the decision of the RBA, and it's unfortunate that we're seeing another rate rise. What Australian families out there are feeling—it's not just through spreadsheets; it's when they see their direct debit mortgage payments come out. As we're hearing from everyone across the chamber, housing is a massive issue. Clearly, more needs to be done. The supply issue needs to be addressed. I've been hearing from my own constituents that the government needs to do something about negative gearing—anything. The capital gains tax discount needs to be addressed as well. Now, these are very simple solutions alongside the supply issue that we're all talking about. I think they're easy fixes. We can't let this continue to pinch Australian families.

An average sized Sydney mortgage holder is going to be paying $2,070 in extra interest per year because of the RBA's decision today to raise rates by 25 basis points. It was only one year ago that the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, told us:

The worst of the inflation challenge is now well and truly behind us.

That was in January 2025. And it was only six months ago that Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister, said:

We have turned the corner there with inflation …

That was in July 2025, six months ago. Yet what we have seen in the last four months is inflation in Australia accelerating. It was 3.8 per cent last month at an annualised rate, significantly higher than the previous month's figures, well outside the RBA's target band and, importantly, heading in the opposite direction to the rest of the world. Inflation in the United States is 2.7 per cent and coming down. Inflation in the Eurozone is two per cent and level. Inflation in the UK is 3.4 per cent and coming down. In Canada, it's 2.4 per cent and falling. In Japan, it's 2.1 per cent and falling. In Germany, it's 1.8 per cent and falling. But in Australia inflation is going up. That is why the Reserve Bank is having to raise interest rates.

Now, this isn't the first time, of course. By my count, anyway, this is the 13th rate rise that happened under the Anthony Albanese led Labor government, whilst there's been only one rate cut. What that means is that householders with an average size mortgage in Sydney today are paying $2,000 more in interest a year because of this decision, but they're also paying thousands of dollars a year more because of previous RBA decisions. You are paying more interest, but you're also paying more in taxes because salary earners have been progressively pushed into high-income tax brackets by high inflation, by bracket creep, by this Anthony Albanese government. And you are paying more for goods and services. High inflation means that the price of things is rising at a fast rate. Whether it's food, whether it's electricity, whether it's school fees, whether it's rent, whether it's housing, whether it's utilities, whether it's insurance or meat, fruit and vegetables or school uniforms, all of these things are rising in double digits or high single digits on a yearly basis. If you are a householder in Australia, under this government you're paying more in interest, you're paying more in taxes, you're paying more for life's everyday essentials. That is a trifecta of economic policy failure to have every household in Australia basically worse off.

The government will dispute, and has disputed today, that they have anything to do with this. They say it's not their problem. In their first two years in office they blamed post-COVID supply chain hangovers. They blamed the war in Ukraine. They blamed the commodity price surges. They blamed trade and tariff uncertainties. But the truth is that the rest of the world have gotten on top of inflation. Other central banks around the world are cutting interest rates; it's only our central bank that is increasing interest rates. Only Australia—a unique outlier in all the worst respects.

The government would have you believe that this has nothing to do with their spending. Well, let's just look at what the experts say. We have AMP economist Shane Oliver saying:

The best thing that Australian governments can do to help bring down inflation would be to cut government spending back to more normal levels.

He's not the only one. Government spending at the moment, you would note, is 26.9 per cent of GDP, the highest level of government outlay in 40 years, outside of the pandemic. In the budget papers last year we had government spending growing at four times the rate of the economy. If you have more public money, more government spending competing with the private sector for a finite supply of goods and services and capital labour, it's going to do two things. Firstly, it's going to crowd out the private sector, and we've seen that. The private sector is struggling to attract workers, it is deterred from investing, it can't access capital and it's not investing in the future. Secondly, it's going to push up prices, and that's exactly what we've seen. IFM Investor's chief economist, Alex Joiner, has said that the 'fiscal guardrails have come off'.

If you want to know why Australia alone amongst developed countries has inflation going up, and if you want to know why Australia alone amongst developed countries has its central bank raising interest rates, look to the government, look to their profligate spending, look to their lack of fiscal discipline, look to their abolition of fiscal guardrails.

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Paterson be agreed to.

The Senate will now consider a proposal, under standing order 75, from Senator McKim, which is shown at item No. 14 of today's Order of Business:

The urgent need for the Treasurer to intervene and announce an end to property investor tax breaks, in order to cool runaway housing costs and, with housing costs the biggest contributor to the inflation spike, help mortgage holders and renters by reducing the likelihood of a series of interest rate rises.

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The urgent need for the Treasurer to intervene and announce an end to property investor tax breaks, in order to cool runaway housing costs and, with housing costs the biggest contributor to the inflation spike, help mortgage holders and renters by reducing the likelihood of a series of interest rate rises.

In the face of a housing crisis that has locked out an entire generation from homeownership, Labor is choosing to tinker around the edges while locking in policies that make the problem worse. And it is a choice. While you're getting smashed by unlimited rent increases, massive mortgage repayments and today a rate rise, every year Labor is handing $12.3 billion to landlords. We live in one of the wealthiest countries on earth. Everyone should be able to afford a home to own or to rent comfortably. Instead our government is choosing to waste billions on property investor tax perks, choosing to allow unlimited rent increases, choosing to allow the RBA to use interest rate rises as a hammer against mortgage holders and choosing to allow the big bank profits to soar even more instead of choosing to help people.

Politics should work for everyday people, but right now it doesn't. Both major parties are backing the profits of the banks and the ultrawealthy instead of doing what's necessary to make sure that young people can buy a home. There are seven million renters in this country, and millions of them would like to be homeowners. Everyone I know has a story about a young person being locked out. Our view, as the Greens, is that we should be backing them—to hell with the profits of the big banks. Australians have just copped an interest rate hike today because inflation has spiked. Why? Because the government hasn't done enough to deal with rising house prices and corporate price gouging.

If you're a mortgage holder or a renter, you're now being hit to solve the government's inflation problem. It shouldn't be on people to solve the government's inflation problem. Anyone with a mortgage will be giving even more every month to the big banks. Renters are going to cop it, as investors will pass on rate rises. It is hard enough right now to get ahead. You shouldn't be doing it even harder. It shouldn't be on you. Labor could put an end to negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts, they could build more public and affordable homes, they could freeze and cap rents, and they could regulate the banks to deliver fairer, lower mortgages. Instead they're choosing to tinker around the edges of the housing crisis, and their policies are locking in price rises and locking out an entire generation from homeownership. It's not fair, and they need to fix it.

In addressing this urgency motion on housing, there are parts of it that we certainly would agree with, but in general—on a day that the RBA has had to increase interest rates because of government expenditure going to historic highs of almost 27 per cent, which is vastly higher than in the pre-COVID period, this is an embarrassment for a treasurer who said that there were going to be no more interest rate rises. The fact is that today's announcement by the Reserve Bank was a unanimous judgement by that board. What that means is that his own department secretary agrees with the rest of the RBA's directors that rates should go up. So it's a vote of no confidence in the Treasurer from his own department head today, and it's a vote of no confidence in the Australian economy, frankly. I feel for the many Australians that now have to pay much higher mortgages because of Canberra's mismanagement.

Looking at the motion before the chamber, housing inflation is a big problem. It's a serious problem. At 19 per cent, since Labor came to office, it is a big part of the housing problem that faces so many people. The government brag every day about how much money they're spending on housing. But guess what counts? What counts is what you get for the money. Most people would assume that, if you spend more money on something, you're going to get more stuff. This government spends 80 billion bucks on housing and gets fewer houses—$80 billion for fewer houses.

What you've also seen is a government presiding over a dearth in productivity growth, a collapse in productivity growth, in the housing sector. They have not sought to examine the issue of the CFMEU and other corrupt entities that are permeating and killing the sector. The CFMEU was apparently put out of business by the Prime Minister. But then we find, only weeks later, that they're expanding their operations into apartment building in New South Wales.

You've got Canberra building a massive housing bureaucracy, where Labor brags about spending billions and billions of dollars on housing, but we're getting fewer houses. We've gone from getting over 200,000 houses a year on average to now only 170,000 houses a year on average over the period of the Albanese government.

We see a huge inflation problem in the housing sector, a lack of productivity and a lack of will to address the corrupt Mafia elements that have permeated the housing system in Australia. Now all Australians have to pay the price of malfeasance, waste and mismanagement.

Many of the members of the Senate and the House like to talk about political issues because, of course, they are politicians. The Labor Party are very good at politics. They're very good at spin. They're probably the world's best politicians, okay? But they are the world's worst managers. The scoreboard doesn't lie. When you spend a lot of taxpayer funds, but you're getting less of something, that is a bad result for the Australian people. And the Australian people are feeling it. It's offensive to see the Minister for Housing and the Prime Minister walk around saying, 'We're giving people five per cent deposits. Fantastic. We've solved the housing crisis.' It is jarring, because what that scheme is doing, in an uncapped manner, is putting up house prices for younger people. House prices are too high in this country, particularly for younger people. It is impossible for a person on an average wage to buy a house in many of our capital cities now.

One of the reasons is these demand-side gimmicks brought to you by the Labor Party and the spin machine. The Labor Party would have workshopped, with their working groups and their polling shops, what their policies would be before they even knew what they were going to be, because they're more interested in the spin. The Prime Minister himself says he's more interested in having political fights than doing anything.

People take their opportunities and liberties to opine about the state of the opposition, as they are welcome to do, but this government is doing nothing. In fact, they're doing worse than nothing. They're actually taking the country backwards when it comes to housing. The Australian people feel it. They feel it because they know that younger people are seeing the Australian dream fall out of their reach.

I don't think anybody denies there's a housing crisis in this country and we need to be extremely focused on addressing housing affordability. It's real, it's serious, and it's hurting Australians. But slogans don't build homes, and all this motion is is a slogan, not supply. The housing crisis wasn't created overnight. It was a generation in the making, driven by a decade of underbuilding, underinvestment and a Commonwealth that walked away from housing altogether. We just heard the Liberal spokesman claim that this government is doing nothing. How about having no housing minister? That is doing nothing. There's no focus at all.

The critical point missing from this motion is supply, not tweaking the tax code. If you don't build enough homes, prices go up. That is basic economics. I think everyone should understand and appreciate that, in the housing crisis, the No. 1 fundamental thing we cannot be distracted from is increasing supply. Tax settings matter at the margins, but supply determines outcomes at scale. Right now, Australia has a housing supply gap that measures in the hundreds of thousands of homes, and that gap was created long before this government took office.

Instead of press releases and protest politics, Labor is doing the hard work of rebuilding Australia's housing system. It's a $45 billion agenda, the most ambitious since World War II. It's more than eight times the coalition's investment when they were in office. There are 55,000 social and affordable homes underway as part of the $10 billion HAFF, 100,000 homes reserved exclusively for first home buyers under the Help to Buy scheme and a national ambition to deliver 1.2 million new homes, working with states, councils and industry. The latest data coming out of the ABS showed that the total number of dwellings approved in the last calendar year was up to 195,730, a 12.8 per cent increase since 2024. That's real progress in the numbers. There's an upward trend in approvals, including units, over the previous 12 months.

Crucially, we are backing ambition with action. We're training more tradies; funding enabling infrastructure; cutting red tape, including pausing the National Construction Code; fast-tracking environmental approvals; and scaling up modern construction. That's how you cool housing pressure sustainably—by increasing supply through targeted actions, not chasing headlines. The idea that a single tax switch would magically tame inflation or shield households from interest rate movements simply doesn't stack up. Even the proponents of changing some of these tweaks have acknowledged that you may, at best, impact prices by one to two per cent. It's not the main game, and it distracts us from the main game of building more homes. Housing costs are rising because there aren't enough homes, not because of one line in the tax code. The fastest, most durable way to ease pressure on renters and mortgage holders is to build more homes where people live and work. That's what this government is doing.

I'll make another point that, while our opponents and the Greens party talk a lot about housing and so-called tax breaks, they've taken too many opportunities to actually oppose housing, even in our state of Tasmania. I know that there was a proposal in 2024 where the Tasmanian Greens actually joined the Liberals to vote down a UTAS relocation that promised 2,000 new homes in Tasmania. The Liberals and the Greens teamed up in Tasmania to block 2,000 new homes. That would have been 2,000 affordable new homes right in the heart of Hobart, where you need them. Instead, they're here debating motions and slogans, opposing actual, tangible progress we could have had in Hobart to give people 2,000 critical and affordable new homes they need—proving, once again, that when it comes to housing, they talk urgency but vote delay.

In 2025, when Hobart needed more homes, the Greens opposed expanding the urban growth boundary, slowing the release of new land and pushing housing pressure back onto renters and first home buyers through tighter supply. We need to be embracing the YIMBY attitude—'yes in my backyard'—saying yes to more housing, not the NIMBY attitude that the Greens embrace, which says, 'Let's tweak tax codes but vote for no new housing.' This government chooses construction over contention and delivery over delay. We are absolutely focused on solving this housing crisis, and we are focused on building more homes, not more hashtags. That's why this urgency motion misses the mark and why Labor will be focused on building the homes Australia actually needs.

When we're talking about housing, it's not just a social issue that we bang on about but a macroeconomic one. This isn't about pointing fingers at who's to blame, who was in government the longest or who created the mess; it's about what we're going to do about this mess that we find ourselves in. When we have figures showing that social housing makes up just 3.6 per cent of dwellings, which is down from nearly six per cent back in the 1980s, that's concerning, and it highlights policy failure of the government of the day.

We've heard from Senator Dowling about the importance of increasing supply, but there are other things we can address that will save a lot within the budget and also ensure that, for Australian families and young Australians who are doing it tough, the Australian dream of homeownership is not lost. They include addressing negative gearing and capital gains tax discount and making sure we are not giving property investors the tax breaks that they don't really deserve. Let's face it, seven per cent of investors own a quarter of all investment properties. I wouldn't be surprised if they were most of the 48 billionaires around the country who are hoarding the assets and who are trying to influence the politics of the day, who have politicians in this place who do their bidding for them. So it is about getting to the crux of the issue, and that is listening to the Australian people and easing cost-of-living pressures by making housing affordable. That means addressing negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount, which, research shows, would save the budget about $160 billion. That's a lot of money that could go into building houses.

I always welcome Senator McKim's urgency motions on housing, because I agree with him that housing is an urgent issue for all Australians. Arguably it's one of the most urgent issues facing future generations of Australians. That is why I'm sure Senator McKim must be so relieved to have a responsible Labor government in office instead of the chaos of the former coalition, who spent a decade destroying housing affordability in this country. The Liberals created the crisis through a decade of inaction. And, at every turn, over the past three years the Greens have played their political games with the conservatives in the hope of picking up an extra few votes.

We all know how that turned out. It's why the Australian people showed the Liberals' housing spokesperson, Michael Sukkar, the door at the last election, along with the Greens housing spokesperson, Max Chandler-Mather. So imagine my surprise, seeing Michael Sukkar's name pop up in the media last week, at the not-so-secret meeting in a nice house and suburb of Melbourne. Nothing says 'modern Liberal Party' like a bunch of blokes disappearing into a house to decide a woman's fate. I'll tell you what they weren't talking about: they weren't talking about housing policy or how to get more Australians into a house of their own. They were talking about their own corner offices; that's what they were talking about.

Compare that approach to Labor's: a $45 billion Homes for Australia plan to deliver 55,000 social and affordable homes, as well as initiatives to make it easier to buy and better to rent and to build more homes. In this term of government we will build more that one million new homes in the next five years. Plans are underway to construct 55,000 social and affordable homes, an area of critical need. Recently I was pleased to visit a construction site in the CBD of Toowoomba. It's a partnership project between the council, the state and the federal government to deliver 75 units in the CBD. We're also training more tradies at TAFE to get more Aussie workers out on the tools, with $10,000 incentive payments to help them with their study in a trade. We're making it easier to buy a home, with our five per cent deposit guarantee for every first-home buyer in the country. And there'll be more to come.

I'm especially proud to say that, since coming to office, the Albanese government has supported over 220,000 people to buy a home with a five per cent deposit. I'll say that again: 220,000 Australians are in a home thanks to the Albanese government, thanks to our five per cent deposit initiative—which you all tried to destroy. In my home state of Queensland, Labor's five per cent home deposits are making a huge difference to families. I'm proud to say that more than 50,000 Queenslanders are in a home of their own thanks to Labor's five per cent home deposit scheme. That's 50,000 Queenslanders who would still be renting if the Greens and the Liberal Party had their way. That's 50,000 Queenslanders who would still be struggling to save a 20 per cent deposit if the Liberals and the Nationals had remained in power. Fifty thousand Queenslanders who they would prefer to see paying $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000 in lenders mortgage insurance have saved that money thanks to Labor.

On this side of the chamber, when there's a job to be done, we roll up our sleeves. We know that there is more work to do, because hardworking Australians across this country, despite doing everything in their power to save for a house, are still struggling to buy their own home. But they are also being demonised for getting a home loan. People in this chamber forget that ordinary people need to go and see a bank, lender or broker to get a loan to buy a home. There are people in this chamber that whinge about people going to the bank to buy a home, but what is the alternative? I don't know anyone who could pay cash for a home, certainly not on this side of the chamber, but I reckon there are a few people on that side of the chamber who do.

The ones who are applying to the bank, ordinary Australians, ordinary Queenslanders, to get a loan don't want to spend tens of thousands of dollars on lenders mortgage insurance, which is basically a tax on working families. They are the ones out there doing the real work and earning the real money. In the face of global uncertainty and a difficult economy, Labor knows people need hope, opportunity and help to get into their first home. That's exactly what our five per cent deposits do.

What a dark day. Just hours ago, the Reserve Bank raised interest rates to 3.85 per cent. This is one of the shortest and shallowest rate-cutting cycles in three decades. What this actually means is that millions of Australians will bear the brunt of this interest rate rise because the government has not tackled two major causes of inflation: spiralling health costs and corporate profiteering. If you are a mortgage holder or renter, you're being hit by the RBA to fix the government's inflation problem. The government's priorities mean that everyday Australians are copping the pain, while banks, energy companies and property investors keep winning. People are rightly worried about their economic security, their wages and their futures. They are hurting.

We know that housing is a huge contributor to our inflation and the cost-of-living crisis. According to the ABS, housing was the largest contributor to annual inflation over the past 12 months, with a 5.5 per cent rise. Politics is all about choices. Just the other day, new data from ACOSS showed that the federal government spends more on tax breaks for wealthy property investors than it does on social housing, homelessness and rent assistance combined. That's a choice, a choice against the issues that are facing so many Australians in housing stress. This is $12.3 billion of foregone revenue towards the deeply unfair capital gains tax discount and negative gearing tax break while social housing waiting lists exceed 10 years in every major city.

Social housing makes up less than two per cent of dwellings today. That's down from 22 per cent of all housing built annually in the 1950s. We know things can be different. We are at a record low in social housing stock, which only makes persistent homelessness worse. Come to my city of Adelaide and you can see it on our streets and parklands every day and every night. There are nine preventable deaths every single day of people who have experienced homelessness. This is a national shame in our wealthy country.

It's clear that Labor cares more about investors with dozens of properties than it does about renters, first home buyers and people experiencing homelessness. Labor needs to stop making things worse. The solutions are clear. Our history shows us we can do this well and we can do it differently. We need to make corporate price gouging illegal. We need to end the tax breaks that help wealthy investors to hoard housing. This government must urgently slow housing inflation. Labor needs to stop treating housing like a game of Monopoly. It needs to scrap the tax breaks for wealthy property investors and to directly build public and affordable housing. Labor should be protecting households, not corporate profits.

Treasurer Chalmers recently said the government is open to tax reform to address intergenerational unfairness driven by this nation's dysfunctional property market. Well, it's time you did something about it, Treasurer. Even Mathias Cormann, who is now leading the OECD, has said that this government should be 'removing some of the favourable tax treatment of residential property ownership, including capital gains tax concessions and negative gearing'. In his words, this 'would help to cool demand and could help to mitigate upward pressure on house prices.'

There's growing pressure on the government to act. It's time to get on with it. There are solutions there. Let's implement them. Let's relieve some of the pressure that so many Australian families are facing, rather than making the problems worse with things like the five per cent deposit scheme, which just add heat and fuel rising house prices.

Interest rates, as we all know, are up. I want to say to people, very clearly, don't blame the RBA for putting interest rates up. Blame Labor and the government for creating the circumstances that left the RBA with nowhere else to go other than to put interest rates up. We know that if you're a mortgage holder, more of your money is now going into the profits of the big banks. We know that if you're renting, you know exactly what comes next, because higher interest rates flow straight into higher rents. We've seen this story before. It shouldn't be ordinary Australians carrying the pain because Labor has refused to take on the corporate price gougers right across the economy and because Labor's policies have turbocharged the housing crisis.

The governor of the Reserve Bank singled out credit growth as one of the things that the RBA was extremely concerned about. We know that, since Labor put in place their five per cent deposit scheme, credit growth for housing speculators has gone through the roof—it's growing at record rates—whereas credit growth for owner-occupiers—people who want to borrow to fund the purchase of their own home—is absolutely flat. It is stagnant.

Labor has turbocharged housing demand and that demand is being driven by property speculators, who are flooding back into the market. They're supported by the mindbogglingly massive taxpayer subsidies that Labor offers them, in particular in the form of the capital gains tax discount—the most unfair tax break on the books in this country. Sums in the tens of billions of dollars a year are handed over by the Labor Party to help people who are buying their 50th, their 100th or their 500th investment property to outbid renters who are trying to buy their first home.

Massive property speculator tax breaks are turbocharging housing prices. Labor's culpability is clear. On corporate price gouging, Labor's culpability is just as clear. Right across the economy—whether it's the banks, whether it's airlines, whether it's insurance companies—we are seeing corporate price gouging making bank off ordinary Australians, because this Labor government is refusing to act.

How do you claim to tackle the housing and cost-of-living crises while handing out $360 billion for imaginary subs? How do you say you're easing pressure on families, when one in three big corporations pay less tax than a nurse, without upsetting billionaire donors? It's tricky. How do you choose between helping a single parent who can't afford rent or giving yet another tax break to her landlord? How do you tell Gina Rinehart or Anthony Pratt that they might need to pay more tax because nurses and teachers can't put food on the table after paying theirs?

Apparently, the answer is simple. Billionaires make massive political donations. Nurses and teachers don't. Inflation isn't driven by a nurse's pay rise; it's driven by corporate greed. The major parties would rather see your mortgage explode than rein in the property moguls in this country. They would rather protect fossil fuel donors than cut your energy bills. It is the same hypocrisy and the same excuses. We must end property investor tax breaks and curb the power of billionaires and corporations, and we must put housing and households first. It seems pretty bloody simple. Families don't need excuses; they need relief. All we need is some courage and some leadership from this government.

I know there are some in this place who are busy telling people the housing crisis is caused by migration. They tell people this easy lie and the supposedly easy solution. We expect to hear that racist sentiment from One Nation and the Liberals, but we can't forget Labor's role in enabling it. On 4 November last year Senator Bell, from One Nation, asked a question which attempted to blame the housing crisis on migration. He asked the government when serious removals would begin. Instead of condemning or even disputing One Nation's racist dog whistle, Minister Watt from Labor said he had already outlined some of the steps this government has taken to reduce net overseas migration. When someone asks if you are going to kick out migrants who are taking all our houses, you don't accept the premise; you fight it—unless, like Labor, you have no other solutions and you're willing to join the dog whistle.

Research by the Australia Institute shows that the number of dwellings is growing faster than the population. The real problem here is clear: it's tax breaks, capital gains rorts and negative gearing—not migrants—that are driving up house prices. How do we know? During the COVID lockdown, when net migration was negative, house prices went up by 20 per cent in just 18 months. It's time to get real. Bring a plan into this place that isn't handouts for developers or investors, that doesn't rely on putting people in horrifically large mortgages and that doesn't blame migrants for the greed of bankers and their political mates in this place. (Time expired)

The question is that the Greens' urgency motion be agreed to.

by leave—I wish to correct an error made in my speech on the condolence motion for the former senator Nick Bolkus. In that speech, I stated that he had served as Australia's ambassador to Greece. That statement was incorrect, and I unreservedly apologise to the Senate and to the family of the late senator for this error.

by leave—I advise the Senate that I am now the Nationals whip for the purposes of standing order 24A, relating to the Selection of Bills Committee.

I present the 188th report of the Committee of Privileges, entitled Person referred to in the Senate: Ms Andrea Selvey, and I move:

That the report be adopted.

This report forms part of a series of reports recommending that a right of reply be afforded to persons who claim that they have been adversely affected by being referred to in the Senate either by name or in such a way as to be readily identified.

On 8 December 2025 the President received a submission from Ms Andrea Selvey relating to a speech made in the Senate by Senator Whitten on 28 October 2025. The President referred the submission to the committee under privilege resolution (5). The committee has considered the submission and recommends that Ms Selvey's response be incorporated in Hansard.

The committee reminds the Senate that, in matters of this nature, it does not judge the truth or otherwise of statements made by senators or the persons referred to; rather, it ensures that these persons' submissions—and, ultimately, the responses it recommends—accord with the criteria set out in privilege resolution (5). I commend the motion to the Senate.

On Tuesday 28 October last year, I gave an adjournment speech which discussed the governance failings and questionable conduct at the Shire of Augusta Margaret River in Western Australia.

Ten years ago public officers from this local government set the objective of developing a wind farm and then outsourced the project directly to their own external corporation, known as AMRCCE. The same people then used public resources to support their project. For these ten years the shire and AMRCCE only ever promoted a community-owned 10-megawatt project, but last year the wind farm was secretly sold to Synergy, who is now advancing a project more than ten times larger right in the heart of the Blackwood River and Scott River seasonal wetlands.

The community and I have both received direct responses from the shire in relation to my speech. The shire CEO, Ms Andrea Selvey, attacked me through a public statement on the shire website and through a hostile letter attacking my personal integrity. The community was also on the receiving end. Selvey contacted Facebook community group administrators to censor my speech and information from the community. In the 26 November council meeting, the shire president, Ms Julia Jean-Rice, can be watched on YouTube threatening residents with claims that there are certain procedures they can follow in relation to what she terms 'defamatory misinformation'. These are the standard buzzwords for when somebody's on to you. Ms Jean-Rice also says that the shire pursuing a large-scale renewable energy project without a guiding policy would be bad governance. We'll, that's exactly what they've been up to at the shire since 2017.

These shire leaders want these matters to go away. Not only are they trying to censor information but they are covering up their tracks. For example, the key minuted records which showcase AMRCCE's overlap with the shire are no longer on the shire's website. The sustainability advisory committee and reference group meetings across 2017 to 2021 are one such example. AMRCCE's conduct is also questionable. This so-called community spirited, publicly funded organisation took its records offline in April last year, including annual reports, AGM minutes and full membership list, but we have all of them. We have the skeletons and the smoking guns. Today I'm going to discuss the two key policies the shire used to endorse AMRCCE, namely the local energy action plan and the climate action plan. Then I'm going to talk about the decade-long deception led by the shire.

The policies which supported the shire outsourcing its multimillion dollar wind farm to AMRCCE began in October 2014, when the shire embedded the goal of a community-owned wind farm into its local action plan. By 2016 these ambitions were added to the corporate plan, and the shire assembled a group of 20 people to advance the project. On 17 May 2017 this group separated and created AMRCCE Inc. By 14 June former councillor and AMRCCE's chairperson Ms Lyn Serventy wrote a letter to the shire requesting policy and funding support. The very next day, the shire's sustainability advisory committee met and reviewed Serventy's letter. Not only did Serventy sit on the committee herself; she led the motion to endorse her own letter. Another AMRCCE member, Ms Laura Bailey, seconded the motion. In fact, the meeting was attended by nine AMRCCE members, and five of them sat on the committee. Unsurprisingly, they supported the letter's requests. Two weeks later, at 28 June 2017 council meeting, councillors also approved the letter's request, endorsed AMRCCE as the external vehicle to achieve the local energy action plan and outsourced the windfarm directly to AMRCCE. In both council and committee meetings, not one interest declaration is recorded, despite at least 10 public officers involved being AMRCCE members.

If I move to 2018, on 14 November the council adopted the final local energy action plan. The community consultation section shows that three out of four groups the shire consulted with were all the same people hiding behind different names. This included AMRCCE itself; AMRCCE's chairperson, Lyn Serventy, on behalf of herself yet again; and Transition Margaet River, a group aligned with AMRCCE in both people and ambitions. By 2019 the shire had worked to replace the local energy action plan with a climate action plan. To develop this new policy, the shire partnered with another external organisation created by its own public officers, this time climate action Augusta Margaret River. Together the group and the shire hosted a summit on 28 May 2019, where they put together the climate action plan and made sure it suited AMRCCE's windfarm goals.

AMRCCE, Transition Margaret River and climate action Augusta Margaret River all share overlapping members made up of people who hold or have held shire roles. These public officers at this shire have established a culture of creating their own external organisations to support shire activities. The shire supports these groups with public resources and then uses them to help shape community consultation and shire initiatives. Some of these organisations bypass policies and use public money in a very private way, just like AMRCCE's windfarm in the absence of a renewable energy policy.

Now I want to discuss the mistruths by the shire and AMRCCE about the Scott River windfarm. Synergy first announced its commercial scale Scott River windfarm in February 2024, but for 10 years prior the shire and AMRCCE led this windfarm proposal. Together they only ever disclosed aspirations for a community owned 10-megawatt project, but AMRCCE was just a front for Synergy, and there was never going to be a small community project. The four key stakeholders in this include the shire, AMRCCE, Synergy and WALGA. In 2018 AMRCCE's first annual report already acknowledges Synergy, Western Power and multiple windfarm hosts of today, and thanks Synergy's lawyers, Herbert Smith Freehills, for their free legal support. AMRCCE's 2019 annual report cites progress at signing up multiple land-access agreements, even though the 10-megawatt project would only require one property.

In October 2019 then shire president and AMRCCE member Ms Pam Townshend is credited with signing away the shire's energy procurement rights to WALGA through the Cities Power Partnership. In AMRCCE's 2020 annual report, Herbert Smith Freehills are thanked again for even more free legal support. Across 2021 and 2022, AMRCCE signed commercial marketing deals with one of its own member's, Mr Rodney Littlejohn's, private companies—Tersum Energy Pty Ltd and Clear Energy Pty Ltd. The shareholders among his two companies are very interesting and include big-time energy developers and policy players such as Mr Dermott Costello, who is not only the group global general manager of a wind turbine development company called Galetech but also chief executive officer for the Clean Energy Council in Western Australia, and Mr Greg Allen, who is the director of project development and the deal origination for Vestas. Vestas is the very company that builds windfarms for Synergy.

By AMRCCE's 2022 annual report, the group had applied for 22.5 megawatts with Western Power in April. But the shire continued pushing mistruths about the 10-megawatt community project in their 21 June Sustainability Advisory Committee meeting. In 2023 and 2024, Synergy's lawyers turn up again. This time Herbert Smith Freehills lodged windfarm land-access caveats over properties on behalf of Synergy before the community ever knew the project was coming. In February 2024 Synergy finally announces its Scott River windfarm policy, the project scale increases more than tenfold, and the community ownership component vanishes.

Western Australian parliamentary Hansard records from 19 September 2024 show AMRCCE handed over multiple landowner agreements to Synergy. On 16 September 2025 the Western Australian minister for energy claimed Synergy acquired the rights to AMRCCE's windfarm on 23 February 2023, but we see Synergy's own EPA submission documents include dates which indicate Synergy was working on the project much earlier than this. It should surprise nobody that the wind farm has ended up in the hands of Synergy and its partner Enel. Both are among WALGA's preferred suppliers, and this ties everything back to 2018 and 2019, WALGA's Cities Power Partnership and all that free legal support. Nothing will go to the project's neighbours, and the environment will be subject to fibreglass and epoxy based turbines degrading into pristine pasture, forests and the groundwaters of the Blackwood River catchment. And the endangered birds and bats are another story.

The foreign oil and gas companies who own 80 per cent of Synergy's renewable energy portfolio must be absolutely laughing. This is a betrayal of the community and the environment. All the evidence will be made available at my office, and I will also forward copies directly to the Shire. I seek leave to table the evidence.

Leave not granted.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I present additional information received by the Environment and Communications References Committee for its inquiries into climate risk assessment and online safety—separate inquiries for which information has come in over the summer.

I present human rights scrutiny reports 7 and 8 of 2025 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.

I present the 230th report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.

I present the government response to the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement on its inquiry into the impact of new and emerging information and communication technology. I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows—

Australian Government response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement report:

Impact of New and Emerging Information and Communication Technology

NOVEMBER 2025

Recommendations made in Impact of new and emerging information and communication technology

Committee Recommendations

Recommendation 1:

The committee recommends that the National Cybercrime Working Group examines and reports on the merits of the following initiatives as part of its work developing a new National Plan to Combat Cybercrime:

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 2:

The committee recommends that the Australian government considers establishing a task force comprising information and communications technology (ICT), legal, law enforcement and security experts, including from academia, to:

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 3:

The committee recommends that the Australian government evaluates the current Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty process and identifies:

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 4:

The committee recommends that the Australian government explores a range of approaches for improving the information and communications technology (ICT) skills and capabilities of the law enforcement workforce, including:

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 5:

The committee recommends that the Australian government explores suggestions from law enforcement agencies and cybersecurity experts for improving information and communications technology (ICT) capabilities and resources, including:

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 6:

The committee recommends the Australian government considers the use of hybrid storage strategies, artificial intelligence and other advanced techniques for sorting, filtering and analysing large volumes of data.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 7:

The committee recommends that the Australian government takes the following into account when developing any future strategies for biometric data and facial recognition systems:

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 8:

The committee recommends that the Australian government reviews current consumer protection laws and regulations in relation to internet-enabled devices and identifies changes that may be required to provide adequate and timely consumer protection in relation to the risks they pose.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 9:

The committee recommends that Australian governments review legal mechanisms intended to protect victims, such as Apprehended Violence Orders, to ensure that they offer adequate protection to victims of crime facilitated by internet-enabled devices.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 10:

The committee recommends that the Australian government develops education materials to inform law enforcement agencies and personnel about new and emerging information and communications technologies that offenders may use to facilitate family and domestic abuse, and to provide guidance on appropriate strategies for responding to such situations.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 11:

The committee recommends that the Australian government develops and implements an Internet of Things (IoT) public awareness campaign that:

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 12:

The committee recommends that the National Plan includes, as a key priority area, ways to better coordinate intelligence gathering, data analytics, data management and investigative support services across Australian jurisdictions and agencies in order to ensure that law enforcement in Australia is able to keep pace with the rapid pace of technological change in digital communications.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 13:

The committee recommends that the Australian government considers implementing the INdata Cooperative Research Centre to address the common big data and information data sharing needs of law enforcement agencies and explores other opportunities for improving information and intelligence-sharing between law enforcement agencies in all Australian jurisdictions.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 14:

The committee recommends that the Australian government considers reviewing the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 and Surveillance Devices Act 2004 and amending them as necessary to ensure that they are technology neutral and an effective legal mechanism for meeting the telecommunications interception needs of law enforcement agencies.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 15:

The committee recommends that the Australian government explores opportunities for greater engagement and partnerships with the private sector to facilitate the exchange of information and communications technology expertise and the development of novel approaches to tackling cybercrime.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

In respect of the government response to the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee report on management and assurance of integrity by consulting services, I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I want to start by acknowledging the contribution of particular colleagues that participated in that inquiry, Senators O'Neill and Barbara Pocock. I appreciate that the government has tabled its response to the report, which I think was an important one in the context of the way that government contracts for services across the board. And I do acknowledge that a number of changes have already been made to the processes for contracting that started occurring during the conduct of that inquiry and have continued since, some of that work in response to recommendations of the inquiry. But there are a few things in this government response that I find a little bit concerning.

I'll start with recommendation No. 7. I have to say that I think that the government is either misinterpreting or misrepresenting what the committee said with respect to a central register for conflict-of-interest breaches. There's a lot of discussion in the response with respect to conflicts of interest, and we respect and acknowledge the work that the government has done in relation to managing conflicts of interest and improving processes around declarations of conflicts of interest as contracts are let and education of personnel within various departments to identify and manage those things. But, in my view, a register of breaches of conflicts of interest should be a very small list. The government makes some reference to its work on its code and the 'notice of significant events' clause. It may be that conflicts of interest could be a part of a notice of a significant event. In fact, I would suggest a breach of conflict of interest probably falls in that category.

My view would be that, as long as the guidance around notices for giving notice of a significant event as part of the government's work makes specific reference to a breach of conflict of interest and there is a place where departments can go and that information is publicly visible and visible to other departments, that's the thing that we were seeking to achieve as part of the recommendation that we made. This was not to do a carte blanche across all conflicts of interest. The committee looked at this pretty closely. We recognised that conflicts of interest exist. You can't legislate all conflicts out of existence. But we want to make sure that, where somebody does, as PwC did, commit a major breach of integrity as part of their contract with the government, it's recorded somewhere. The PwC one is probably not the best example because I don't think there are too many people in the system that wouldn't know about it. But, in time, that will fade. I think that the government should consider that element of the intent of the recommendation as part of the work that it continues to do.

With respect to AusTender, I don't know how many witnesses and colleagues came to us complaining about the operation of AusTender. It needs to be functional and it needs to be easy to search. I acknowledge that the government made some changes to functions starting on 1 July last year. I very much appreciate the government's support for recommendation 12, which went through this chamber not long after the inquiry reported. But that actually does create some duplication that could be removed if AusTender worked as we intended it to and recommended that it should out of the inquiry. So I would encourage the government to continue with that work.

We also made a recommendation with respect to the governance of large partnerships. I know that the Treasury has been doing some work in relation to that. There was a very pertinent question asked during the inquiry in relation to why you would change what's there right now. Different people on the committee had different views in relation to this. My concern is that I don't believe that the structure of a large partnership, such as PwC, adequately looked after the interests of all of the partners where the partners are jointly and severally liable for everything that occurs in the organisation. The way that the business was broken up into different elements meant that those that were part of the particular section of the business contracting on this particular tax law or advising on this tax law wouldn't have been aware of what was happening in other parts of the business. So other partners were not appropriately protected. So I would urge continuation of work on that. When you get the response that we got from the then CEO of PwC, Luke Sayers, who had a worse memory lapse than Alan Bond did at his trial with respect to knowing what was going on—the intent is to make sure that people are properly supported.

The last one that I will go to relates to recommendation 11, which was for a committee of the parliament to oversight spending in respect of contracting, particularly for large IT projects. As someone who has been a participant in this place for a long time and a minister who has gone to ERC seeking funding for large IT projects, which are effectively infrastructure—they are public infrastructure—I can say that there is absolutely no parliamentary oversight of that spending in the way that there is with public works.

The government says in its response:

… Recommendation 1 of the Eighty Seventh Annual Report by the Parliamentary Committee on Public Works (tabled 24 March 2024) proposes a thorough review of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, with a view to repealing and replacing the legislation.

We're not talking about getting rid of the public works committee. That committee provided oversight in 2023-24 of something like $3.7 billion of public expenditure. That oversight by the Senate and the House, through the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, is warranted. What that committee does is look at the scope of works and the cost of those works and perform an assessment on value for money. That's the role. It's not, as the government's response intimates, to decide who does or doesn't get a contract. That's quite rightly a department's role. They do that work. This is to provide oversight of the expenditure of public money and to ensure and provide confidence to the parliament and to the Australian community that value for money is being achieved by that work.

Over the same period that I mentioned with respect to the public works committee, 2023-24, there was something like $3.2 billion of funds spent on consultants and major IT projects. There should be public scrutiny of this expenditure to make sure we're getting value for money. That is my point. It's not to do anything more, despite what is indicated in the response by the government. I think the government misrepresents the intent of the recommendation, and I have to say I'm a little bit suspicious, given the lack of transparency of this government, that that might be a motive. I know that others will want to speak on this and some other things, so I will leave it right there. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning the Consumer Data Right and the Asia Zero Emission Community.

The President has received letters requesting changes to the membership of committees.

I seek leave to move a motion to vary the membership of committees.

Leave not granted.

I seek leave to make a short one-minute statement about the Liberal Party's ambush in the Senate to strip members of the National Party from committee positions without their knowledge.

Minister! You've sought leave. Let me at least ask if leave is granted before you launch into your statement. Is leave granted? Leave is not granted.

What a bunch of sooks!

Minister, that's a bit unparliamentary.

I move:

(1) That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 2 March 2026:

Gambling advertising in Australian society, with particular reference to:

(a) the impact of gambling on Australian communities, families and children;

(b) the harm caused by gambling advertising and inducements, and their role in gambling addiction and the grooming of young gamblers;

(c) the impact and financial relationship of gambling advertising, media companies and sporting codes, including consideration of alternate funding streams;

(d) the various provisions as outlined in the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Ban Gambling Ads) Bill 2024;

(e) the government response to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs inquiry into online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling harm, chaired by the late Peta Murphy; and

(f) any other related matters.

(2) That the committee have the power to consider and use the records of the Environment and Communications References Committee appointed in the previous parliament.

I rise to put forward this motion to establish an urgent inquiry into the gambling industry's influence on Australian politics and the failure of this government to implement the core and essential recommendations of the Murphy report some three years ago.

We all know in this place that gambling advertising is out of control. We all know that the gambling industry continues to peddle its dangerous and insidious industry through vicious advertising, pushing advertising down the throats of regular Australians and straight into the hands—through devices—of our children and young people. We know, of course, that the damage that these gambling companies do to Australian families is significant. We've all heard the stories. We all know those heart-wrenching tales of loss, suicide, devastation and bankruptcy. We know that gambling addiction is a real issue in Australia. We know that Australia loses more, per capita, in gambling than anywhere else in the world. We are the biggest losers.

Considering all of this—considering all of the mounting evidence and all of the expert advice—the one thing that this parliament should be able to do is stop the dangerous promotion of gambling through the insidious advertising that occurs. But this parliament has failed because the government of the day, the Albanese government—despite making promises after promises to do something on gambling advertising—has failed. They've shown a total lack of courage and a total lack of leadership. Families that have been destroyed by the gambling industry and this horrible, sickening addiction have pleaded with the Prime Minister directly. They've pleaded with members of parliament on all sides to get this chamber to act.

The Murphy report, handed down almost three years ago, was very clear in its recommendations. Of course, that inquiry was populated with members from all sides of the political spectrum. There were members of the Labor Party—obviously the committee itself was chaired by the late Peta Murphy—there were members of the Liberal Party and the coalition, and there were Greens and crossbenchers. All of these members, after hearing such strong, important evidence and such convincing expertise, unanimously decided that this parliament needed to act and their recommendations were very clear: to stop gambling advertising in its tracks. If you want to stop the harm that gambling does to families, you have to stop the promotion, just like we've done with tobacco. Tobacco kills; we know smoking kills. We don't ban people from smoking; we ban the promotion of the dangerous and deadly product. That is what we need to be doing when it comes to gambling.

And the Albanese government said they would do it. They promised to do it. Then, three years down the track, another election gone by, and we hear crickets from the government. It seems the Prime Minister just doesn't have it in him to deliver this reform. Why would that be? Why, despite all the evidence, all the heartache, all the unnecessary loss of productivity and of money and of wellbeing, would the Prime Minister fail to act? Well, it's all about how powerful the vested interests are. The gambling lobby is huge. It's powerful. It's greedy.

And of course we know that the big corporate sporting codes are themselves addicted to gambling revenue. We know that our media companies are addicted to the gambling advertising money. Everyone is addicted. But it's everyday Australians, often the most vulnerable and the poorest in our communities, who are carrying the burden and paying the cost of this disgusting, vicious addiction. Millions of dollars—tens of millions of dollars—have flowed from the gambling industry into the pockets of the major parties through donations. Only yesterday there was again an announcement of several hundred thousand dollars, for just the last election year, flowing from some of the biggest gambling companies, Sportsbet and Tabcorp, straight into the pockets of the Labor Party—not to mention how much the gambling industry gives the conservative side of politics.

These greedy gambling companies have the Labor Party and the Liberal Party by the neck. And we have a prime minister, a government, who does not have the courage to say no, doesn't have the courage to tell them, 'Enough is enough; you've had a good ride.' That's why I put this motion forward today for an inquiry into the political influence that this industry has on our body politic, because it is so clear for everybody else to see. Yet, unless we face up to the reality in this chamber, we will never see action, it seems. It doesn't matter how many heartfelt stories we've heard from the families affected, or the pleas to fully represent the legacy of the late Peta Murphy, a Labor hero. Those pleas continue to fall on deaf ears. The silence from this government around acting on gambling advertising is deafening.

When is the Labor Party going to get a spine, to stand up to the greedy gambling lobby and do what is needed? Of course, we've heard all the arguments from the gambling industry as to why we can't have a ban on their advertising, the same as we heard from the big tobacco companies when we tried to ban tobacco advertising: people will get it somewhere else, or someone else will flog it; it'll all be done elsewhere. You hear the gambling lobby saying that people gambling online will just go further online and gamble overseas.

But, of course, these are the types of arguments that the gambling industry has peddled in every jurisdiction that has taken them on—everywhere else in the world that has said no, that has stood up to the dangers of the gambling industry, that has said no to advertising and has tried to rein in the insidious online advertising industry in particular that has ballooned under the guise of the new internet of social media and digital. They had the same argument in every country. Where those nations have stared down the gambling lobby, their fear factors and their fear tactics have not been borne out. In fact, there has been a drop in gambling, a drop in people being addicted to gambling, a drop in losses for people who simply can't afford it.

That's why the gambling industry don't want reform in terms of advertising. That's why the gambling industry don't want their ads banned on television or on our mobile phones that go straight into the hands of our children and our young people. That's why the gambling industry don't want a ban on inducements being texted to gambling addicts. Because they know if these methods, these inducements, these ads and advertisement campaigns can't go ahead, they will lose money. That means fewer people gambling. That means fewer families' lives destroyed. That means more people saved.

That's why the gambling industry doesn't want any changes to advertising. That's why they want to keep running ads during our favourite football games and during our summer cricket. That's why they want to be able to flood our children's mobile phones, tablets and YouTube channels with gambling ads. That's why they want to keep being able to text gambling addicts and say, 'Just a bit more; if you go again, we'll throw you a few bonuses.' They know that if they can't push their dangerous product down the throats of Australians, into the hands of our kids, into the minds of our vulnerable young people, then they won't be able to sell their product.

It is about greed. They must be making an awful lot of money if they're spending tens of millions of dollars convincing politicians not to act. If these big gambling companies have so much money that they can spend tens of millions of dollars in political donations to the Labour Party and the Liberal Party, just imagine how much profit they are making. And the profits are coming off the backs of hardworking Australians, of vulnerable people who simply can't afford to be sucked into this sickening, dangerous and deadly game.

I am not suggesting at all that we ban gambling. If people want to go and put a bet on the horses, that's up to them. If they want to go down to the casino, that's up to them. But stop being able to advertise this deadly product to people who simply can't afford it. It worked with tobacco, and the industry squealed about it, they screamed about it, they screamed blue murder just like the gambling lobby is doing now. We need a government that has the courage of their convictions to take them on.

This issue is not going to go away. I don't know how many times I have heard members in this chamber, particularly of the crossbench, stand up and plead with the government and the opposition, the members of the Liberal Party and the National Party, to join us for proper gambling reform. We've pleaded many, many times. But the major parties' addiction to the money that they get from the gambling lobby says everything.

But the issue is not going to go away, because more people than ever before are receiving and being bombarded with these dangerous ads. These companies are finding trickier, sneakier and nastier ways every single day to get into the phones, televisions and other devices of Australians right across the country and to convince our young people to just have a go. Of course, all they want is for them to become addicted. To break this addiction, this chamber has an opportunity today. Let's get into where the problem really is, and the problem is the Labor and Liberal parties' addiction to the gambling lobby's money.

I want to thank my colleague Senator Hanson-Young for this vital referral for a committee inquiry. Here we are again, confronting an industry so deeply embedded in our politics it feels like trying to pry open steel with our bare hands. Gambling isn't only hurting Australians; it is shaping our politics in ways that should concern us and make us very, very mad.

Despite the overwhelming evidence of the damage that gambling causes, especially to young people and to vulnerable communities, this government continues to drag its heels. It has been more than two years since an inquiry delivered 31 unanimous recommendations. The evidence is there, the political cover is there, and yet almost nothing has changed—not because the facts and the evidence are unclear but because the gambling lobby is louder and it's richer. And it is far more present in these halls than the people being hurt by gambling. Let's be clear; the gambling lobby has more influence on the Labor Party than Labor's own members, not to mention its voters.

The gambling industry is the most prolific lobby group in this country. The Australian Leadership Index shows that they've got 280 lobbyists crawling around Canberra, more than double those from any other harmful industry. When hundreds of paid advocates are knocking on doors, drafting briefs and shaping narratives every day, reform doesn't stall by accident; it stalls by design.

The money doesn't end with lobbying. It flows through the corporate boxes, free tickets, exclusive events—privileges that everyday Australians do not see but captured politicians do. In just two years, Labor and coalition MPs were showered with $245,000 in free sports tickets by organisations opposing a gambling advertising ban. The Prime Minister personally accepted close to $29,000, and Peter Dutton over $21,000. It's influence dressed up as generosity. Imagine being a Labor MP, defending the gambling industry, pretending it's your actual view and not influenced by the truckloads of gifts and donations that you're taking from Sportsbet.

'Disclosure day' at the AEC should be a moment of transparency. Instead it has become a ritual of confirmation: Tabcorp, $60,000; Responsible Wagering, almost $35,000; Clubs Australia, almost $80,000; and Sportsbet, $71,000. Sportsbet is the same company that admitted creating Snapchat filters to promote gambling to our children. When industries that profit from addiction directly fund political parties, it's no surprise when policy mirrors their interests.

Then, of course, there's the revolving door. Former ministers, senior advisers and bureaucrats move seamlessly into lucrative industry roles in the very sectors they once regulated. For folks watching at home, in this building they call the gambling boardrooms retirement homes for Labor MPs. That's how deep this problem is. Research published in Public Health Research and Practice shows that over a third of Australia's registered lobbyists once worked inside government. That pipeline corrodes public trust and entrenches conflicts of interest. The government's lobbyist code of conduct is so weak it barely qualifies as regulation. It excludes in-house lobbyists, offers little transparency around ministerial diaries, imposes no meaningful cooling-off periods and carries virtually no penalties. When I questioned the Attorney-General's Department in Senate estimates about enforcement of the Lobbying Code of Conduct, what did I hear? That the typical response to breaches isn't a fine, an investigation, or even a public report. It's engagement, a stern email, a polite chat. That is the total sum of our oversight. The result? A capture of government by an industry that profits from addiction, desperation and misery.

It's the same playbook that we've seen from big tobacco, big alcohol and the fossil fuel lobby. Flood the political system with money, influence and favours, normalise harm, frame reform as extreme, delay, delay, delay and cash in on everyday Australians. Meanwhile, the harm escalates. Families lose homes, relationships fracture, women and children face increased violence and people lose their lives. People are literally dying because of the major parties' inability to put people's safety ahead of their dodgy political donations from the gambling lobby.

And the harm continues to grow. Around three million Australians now experience gambling harm, financial distress, mental health crises and family breakdown. This isn't just a few problem gamblers. This is a public health crisis comparable to alcohol and tobacco. Young people are being groomed into lifelong customers. Research shows that gambling advertising changes behaviour. One in five young women and one in seven young men have started betting after exposure to ads, and that's just from television. Online it's an absolute minefield. Sport, once a unifying passion, has been saturated. Children learn betting odds before they learn the rules of the game. The harm is real, it's widespread and it is entirely preventable, but only if the government stops working for the lobbyists and starts working for the people who elected it.

Australians are already ahead of the parliament. Polling consistently shows how strong support is for advertising bans, for donation caps and for tougher regulation. Yet we remain stalled, waiting, and watching reform hesitate in the shadow of an industry that has made itself unavoidable. I think, and the Greens think, that it's time to cut the cord. Australians think it's time to cut the cord.

This inquiry is not symbolic. It is absolutely necessary. It will finally force parliament to confront the full scale of gambling harm in our communities—the financial stress, the family violence and the mental health impacts, and the millions of Australians who are affected. It will also expose how advertising and inducements are used to recruit young people earlier, not as punters but as lifelong customers often targeted when young. It will shine a light on the financial relationships between gambling companies, media organisations and sporting codes and on the web of influence that has kept reforms stalled and kept kids watching ads for products that can ruin their lives. If we can't protect our own democracy from the influence of gambling ads, how can we claim to govern in the public interest? How can we look young people in the eye and say their wellbeing comes second to corporate profit? Is Labor really willing to sacrifice an entire generation to a lifelong, crippling gambling addiction? Your job is to work for the people who elected you, not the people who hand out tickets to the corporate boxes.

The question is that the motion be agreed to. It being after 6.30, we'll defer the division until the next sitting day.

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 February 2027:

The governance and performance of Housing Australia, with particular reference to:

(a) the implementation of the Housing Australia Future Fund;

(b) the administration and outcomes of its programs;

(c) the make-up of the board, including intersection with the Department of the Treasury and the existence of observers;

(d) compliance with Senate orders, the Freedom of Information Act 1982, parliamentary oversight and transparency in general;

(e) compliance with workplace standards and norms; and

(f) any other related matters.

The purpose of this motion is to establish an inquiry through the Senate Economics Committee into the governance and the performance of the Housing Australia agency. The reason this reference is necessary, and I would urge the Senate to support this important motion, is that the Labor Party's housing plan is in tatters. Each and every day we come into this parliament and hear the bragging from the Labor Party about how much money they're splurging on housing—you look concerned, Acting Deputy President. All okay?

I'm listening attentively to your contribution, Senator Bragg. Please proceed.

I don't want to do anything unparliamentary. The point is that the performance of the agency that is charged with expending the government's funds on behalf of taxpayers requires serious investigation. The ministers of the Albanese government regularly brag about how much money they're spending on housing—billions and billions of dollars. According to the MYEFO documents, it is now up to $80 billion that this government will have spent on housing since they were elected. Now, that's $80 billion to build fewer houses than the prior government. There is a fly in the ointment when the government is spending more money and receiving less in return. So we are wanting to investigate the governance and performance of this agency which is spending billions of taxpayer funds.

The other primary concern is that the Labor Party has charged Housing Australia to undertake functions that it has no chance of actually doing in an efficient and effective way. The government wants to be a property developer. The government wants to be an insurer. In the long-run history of Australia, invariably the government has not been good at undertaking deep private sector activity like property development and insurance. In fact, perhaps the Treasurer should go back and reread Paul Keating's memoir; he might find that in fact Canberra isn't so good at service delivery like this.

The primary reason for this inquiry is to look at the functioning of this agency which is spending a lot of money and, I would argue, has been asked to do things it couldn't possibly do well. It couldn't possibly be as good as a builder at building properties, and it couldn't possibly be as good as a private insurer at providing insurance services into the economy.

There are many governance issues. There is the fact that the chair of Housing Australia attended the meetings of the audit and risk subcommittee whilst not being a member of that board subcommittee. There is the fact that there was a secret investigation into the board undertaken by Intersection, which was covered up for 18 months by the government. That $24,000 inquiry was commissioned by former minister Julie Collins to look at the significant issues inside the board of Housing Australia. There is the fact that the agency is seeing a 25 per cent staff turnover ratio. Every year at Housing Australia, 25 per cent of the people take off. In the past year, six of the top eight executives have left. This is an organisation that is under huge pressure, because it's been asked to do all these things. The headline of a Sydney Morning Herald article of 27 November last year reads, 'O'Neil reads riot act to agency as Labor seeks to keep housing probe secret'. The point is that the minister, Clare O'Neil, has had to go down to Housing Australia, bang open the doors and say, 'Look, I'm going to read you the riot act, because things aren't so flash here.' And the reason things aren't so flash is that you've got people attending committee meetings that they shouldn't be attending, you've got board dysfunction, you've got massive staff turnover and you've got executives in an exodus from the organisation. So, there are governance issues inside the organisation.

Then there is the fact that the agency is spending $30 million on consultants—a massive amount of money on consultants—again, from a government that said they were worried that the taxpayer was spending too much money on consultants. And there's another huge staff cost of tens of millions of dollars over the life of this agency. That brings me to the primary concern about performance, which is that the agency has billions of dollars invested in it but doesn't seem to be able to build many houses. The fact that we have tried to get to the bottom of how many houses have actually been built but can't seem to get a straight answer—it seems to have been five or 10 or 20 or 30 or 100 or 200 or whatever; we don't seem to know how many have been built.

What we do know is that this agency has been egged on by its political masters to buy houses. It's been buying houses. We've traversed this in Senate estimates and in other places, and it's been revealed that the organisation has been buying houses.

You are so dishonest!

I'll take that interjection. It buys houses. In fact, the interjection is illuminating for the chamber, because the minister at the table was actually the person who was able to enlighten the committee—

Order! Senators, can I just take a moment. I don't have to remind everyone, but interjections are disorderly, and I ask that they be refrained from. Thank you.

Well, I'm happy to take them. The minister at the table tonight is the same minister who told the Senate estimates committee that they were in fact buying off the plan. So, they are buying properties that could be owned by Australians but, instead, the government of Australia is buying properties. They are buying, not building. They are using taxpayer funds to actually compete with Australians in the market, which is another reason this agency is in a lot of trouble.

Then you come to the spend quality. The average cost of a new build is about half a million dollars. But in some cases this government is spending $1.3 million to build a new property. The problem with that is that they are having to fund investors. They have to underwrite the investors' involvement, because of course they are a government for vested interests; they always want to protect the investors, and they want to, quite openly, partner with their good friends of the superannuation lobby who want to invest in housing. So, the taxpayer has to fund this. The taxpayer has to fund the availability payments which go to investors in these projects.

This is another issue that we cannot get to the bottom of. We cannot see a line-by-line breakdown of the availability payments, because apparently that is commercial-in-confidence. So the taxpayer can't find out how much they are underwriting the costs of the Commonwealth of Australia working with Cbus or Australian Super in order to purchase houses for the long term. So, spend quality is a problem.

Then we have the Home Guarantee Scheme, the insurance company that the Commonwealth is now running, and it is doing it with no means testing. So any Australian, whether of modest means or significant means, can now use the five per cent deposit product issued by Housing Australia. The problem with that is that, given that supply has been crashed by this government, they have pump-primed demand, and in the first month of the operation of Labor's scheme you see a 1.2 per cent increase in house prices at the entry level. What we're seeing is a big disparity in the price differential between properties inside the Home Guarantee Scheme and properties outside. House prices are too high for first home buyers in Australia, and one of the reasons they're too high is that, after having crunched and collapsed supply, they have now pumped prime demand at the entry level. They say they want to help first home buyers. They say they're very virtuous people and want to help first home owners or prospective first home owners. There's no doubt the Labor Party is very good at politics. They're very bad at management, but they're very good at slogans and stickers. This five per cent deposit scheme might sound good, but it is very bad for younger Australians because what you're seeing is that first home price getting higher and higher and that first home getting further and further away. So this is another problem. The Home Guarantee Scheme, administered by Housing Australia, also seems to have significant governance issues.

These are all the reasons why we must have more than just an audit by the Australian National Audit Office. We must look at the structure and operation of this agency which is expending billions of dollars directly but also now responsible for a very significant digit liability through the uncapping of these five per cent deposits where any Australian with any means can now call on the Commonwealth to ensure their mortgage. Even the richest Australians can now access welfare through this Labor Party. Then you wonder why you've got a 'spending in the budget' problem. The Reserve Bank is really pleading with the Treasurer to cut spending. Spending at 27 per cent of GDP, the highest in living memory outside of the pandemic, is forcing higher interest rates and more household pain for Australians. One of the reasons for that is simply the government's reckless spend. They are reckless with spending actual money in terms of the outlays and they are reckless with how they use things like guarantees. The guarantee scheme here is not free. It is not free money. This is a liability that must be met by all Australians.

When we have asked questions about Housing Australia at estimates and we have had Minister Ayres and other ministers in the chair, there's been a lot of obfuscation by the government and the agency. It's been hard to get to the bottom of things. When we've received documents like the intersection report, even the title of the document has been redacted. There are pages and pages of redactions here in this document, which I know I am out not allowed to use as a prop. But the point is that even the title of the document is redacted. When the Centre for Public Integrity says this is the most secretive government since the Keating government, this is one of the reasons—the documents that have been funded by taxpayers on the performance of this agency are not provided to the Senate. The Labor Party campaigned that they would be a government that would have integrity and would be transparent, but we haven't been able to get to the bottom of things.

We can't see the availability payments. We can't see the subsidies Labor are paying to their mates at the super funds. We can't see the government's report because it is all redacted. We can't get to the bottom of the staff turnover. We can't get to the bottom of the dysfunction of the hellhole that is Labor's Housing Australia. So we are very pleased that the Audit Office are independent of the government and can't be bullied by the government and that they will do their performance audit into the quality of the spend which has now reached $80 billion. It's $80 billion to get fewer houses. That's why we need this Senate inquiry. The Audit Office will do an inquiry which is going to be mainly financial in nature. It will look at some of the qualities of spend, no doubt, and it will make recommendations to the parliament and the government. But a Senate inquiry can look at the governance and structure of the agency.

The board appears to be a very politically motivated set of appointments. I have to say that the competence of the board is really in question. Even at the Senate last estimates hearing, when I was able to ask the new chair when they were appointed, they didn't even know. They had to look at a piece of paper to find out that they had been appointed in the last week before the estimates hearing. Maybe this particular person was appointed because that they didn't have any knowledge of the issues at Housing Australia; they predated his very recent appointment.

These are all the reasons why the Senate should vote for this motion. We should have an inquiry which allows us to make serious recommendations about the structure and operation of this agency. The Audit Office will do the financial piece, but we should do the governance piece. If the government are going to spend this money, we should try and encourage them to do it as best as they can for the Australian people. These aren't our policies, but our job is to hold the government to account, to get value for taxpayers and to make sure that there is no maladministration. That is our job. So that we can do our job better, we are hopeful that the crossbench will support this motion.

Senator Bragg is urging the Senate to vote for this proposal for a committee inquiry. That would require us to deal with it before 7.30. I'll of course endeavour to make a contribution that makes sure the Senate gets an opportunity to do that. If we fall short of that and I run over time—Senator Bragg could have prevented me from doing that by pulling up stumps on his contribution at 7.14. But we'll need to come back and talk about all this again if we can't get to a vote on the referral.

This is the problem with the modern Liberal Party. It's all tactics and no strategy. What you do a couple of hours ago—you want a referral to the Economics References Committee. I'll make sure I stay relevant to the economics committee and this referral. Senator Canavan is on the economics committee. Senator Bragg and his mates conducted an ambush in here. They didn't tell Senator Canavan and tried to dump him off the committee. It was only the Labor Party, defending Senator Canavan's right to sit on that committee, that asked a few questions about what actually is going on here. What can we do to contribute, to try to get a little bit less of the toxic politics, the nastiness and the character assassinations that have gone on? We're here to help.

Senator Canavan is being bullied out of his position on the economics committee because a bunch of you, who seem to be getting better at ambushes—I'll speak of another ambush, a bit like one of those Mafia dos. It happened just before a funeral. Everybody got together at somebody's house. They looked like a group of ghosts caught exiting a house that they'd been preparing to haunt. These boyos getting together—some of whom have never achieved national prominence before. Suddenly there they are. 'I want to be the machine guy.' They're hanging out with each other, talking about who they're going to kill, who they're going to get, what they're going to do and what a boffo in whatever state it was wants to do for Mr Taylor or for whatever his name is—the member for Canning. These characters are all about the hate and not about their mates. They are all about the internal conflict and not about ordinary Australians trying to get a home. That's the problem.

The toxic politics, the negative politics, the 'no-alition' politics that utterly absorbed the National and Liberal parties over the Morrison period—remember him?—and over the last term, when you had nothing useful to contribute for Australia, have come back to haunt you now. If you haven't got anything constructive to say, if you look down on ordinary Australians trying to have a go, then you end up in this toxic bin fire of nasty politics and self-absorption. In this joint, these characters over there—mirrors would wear out from them looking at themselves and thinking about themselves. They're talking to each other about themselves and talking to each other about how much more right wing they want to become, how much more divisive they want to become and how much more hateful and isolated and nasty they want to become. There's never a moment's thought for ordinary people who want to buy a home. There's never a moment's thought for ordinary people who want their wages to go up. There's never a moment's thought for building things, constructing things or doing things together.

Debate interrupted.

I rise to speak about Australia's values and our great nation. The horrific events of 14 December at Bondi Beach broke many hearts, most especially the hearts of 15 families whose loved ones were taken away from them in the worst way imaginable. The biggest terror attack in our nation's history also hit our veterans hard. On 15 December, Australian veterans started contacting me. They were coming through thick and fast from all directions, and it hasn't stopped. For the veterans who served in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bondi massacre was triggering. I can assure you that they're out there shaking their heads in disbelief. It has put them right back in the war zone of the Middle East.

They're asking one question: why did we spend 20 years fighting over there only to see this hatred and violence unleashed on our very own shores? After the 9/11 terrorist attacks by al-Qaeda on American soil—which killed thousands of our American mates—the United States, as we know, launched what the world would come to know as the global war on terror, and this changed the world as we knew it forever. Forty thousand Australian veterans served in Afghanistan and Iraq. Forty-seven were killed, and hundreds of our veterans suffered injuries both inside and out. These veterans were told that they would, in some cases, pay the ultimate sacrifice to stop terrorism coming to this country.

After 20 years of watching their mates die and living with their own battle scars, the last of our Australian veterans came home in 2020. They left behind the Afghan people, who had walked alongside them to defeat the terrorists. They left behind Afghan women and girls, who they knew, without their protection, would be back under the control of the Taliban—not allowed to go to school, not allowed outside without a male escort and, since August 2024, not even allowed to speak outside the home. For our Aussie veterans who served in the Middle East, this is just another insult to injury. It's a moral injury that they will have to carry with them for the rest of their lives.

Our veterans were told they were fighting for democracy and peace. Now they must watch their sacrifice and the people they fought so hard for to give them freedom go back to living in the Dark Ages. When it comes to making decisions about a war in the Middle East, what we do know as veterans is that following orders from this parliament during those 20 years has done absolutely nothing. The only thing you have done from in here is fuel the fire when it comes to terrorism. After 14 December, the reaction of veterans—and, I think, of a lot of Australians—was heartache and pain. The trauma that all Australians were suffering was not helped by the response to the Bondi massacre by this parliament.

Some saw this as an opportunity, unbelievably, to gain ground by playing politics at a time of such national tragedy. I say this to you: shame on you. It was in stark contrast to the unity and cooperation—that's right, the cooperation—that Australians saw after a madman killed 35 people at Port Arthur, Tasmania, in 1996. Back then, 30 years ago, the parliament—all parties—worked together to fix our gun laws. They put the heart of our nation and its people before politics. And, because of that wisdom and courage, Australians got the gun law reforms we needed. Division was not the answer. Leadership and political will with unity was the only way through.

The days after a national tragedy are a time for grieving. Most importantly, it is a time to find out what happened, how it happened and why it happened and, for God's sake, to make sure it never happens again. The lack of leadership from our political leaders in this place not only appalled veterans; it appalled Australians. And, as someone watching from the sidelines, as a senator for this country, standing right here in front of you, it appalled me.

We don't know everything about the horrific events of that awful day at Bondi, but we do know that it was an attack on our Australian Jewish community on home soil. It was an attack on our Jewish children, and Matilda was the youngest victim that day. Her Ukrainian parents gave her the most Australian name ever. They moved here for a safer life, to be free from persecution. No child in this country should be afraid to be who they are. No schools in this country should need security guards. I don't care what god they worship and I don't care what colour their skin is. They're all our kids. They don't deserve to be chased down by cars or screamed at in our streets. Our children need to be loved and nourished so they can prosper and grow.

Nobody in this country has the God-given right to put the fear of evil into our Australian children. You have no God-given right! I'm not saying don't teach your culture. I'm just saying don't pass your hatreds on to your children. We have communities in this country that stick in their bubbles, and, yes, that's a damn problem—has been for a long time. But blaming immigrants in Western Sydney for a terrorist attack is not the solution, and bullying our politicians into a corner is not the answer either, nor is waving other countries' flags, burning our own Australian flag or screaming racist abuse. Agitating on our streets will not feed and nourish the innocent starving children on the Gaza Strip, because, sadly, it is not within our control. If you want to protest, by all means do so, but lead by example and do it peacefully, because that is the Australian way.

We are living in unstable times, but Australia is still holding its own. We are a strong and free nation. We must do whatever we can to protect our kids, our country and our values. And we're a pretty bloody great country, too. We were one of the first to give women the vote and to enshrine in law rights for workers—eight hours of labour, eight hours of play and, for some of us, eight hours of napping time. We gave the world the black box, spray-on skin, the cochlear implant and penicillin, and who can forget wi-fi? It doesn't stop there. Australia also gifted the world ultrasound and the first cancer vaccine. How's that for accomplishments? That's not to mention Vegemite, the dual-flush toilet, and wine in a box. And don't forget the Hills hoist—you bloody beauty!

We are the sixth-biggest country in the world, and, hell, we are the only ones in the world that have an island continent all to ourselves to play on. We have resources like iron ore, uranium, gold and critical minerals. We have in abundance resources the whole world wants, and, unlike our American mates, we still have a AAA credit rating. We have sunrises and sunsets that take your breath away. We've have mountains, beaches and farms that are the envy of the rest of the world. We even have our very own Skippy the kangaroo and Bananas in Pyjamas, and God help me if I forget Bluey!

We wear thongs where we shouldn't and we swear when we shouldn't, but we're always polite—'G'day, mate!'—and we're always great for reassurance: 'She'll be right, mate.' We've got kebabs and dim sims and curry. We have a great country of mateship and resilience. We have a defence force that is universally regarded as one of the best in the world. There are hundreds of thousands of Australian veterans, and we walk among you. In and out of uniform, we are always with you, and our capabilities remain. I can tell you, people: this country was not training us to make Vegemite sandwiches, although we're always obliged to help. They were training us to be killing machines—ain't that the reality! Most of us are agile, healthy and still very able to defend you again, no matter where and what the situation. And don't forget our Vietnam veterans. God love them; they're always up for the fight. God love our Vietnam veterans.

We don't want terrorism here, we don't want these old hatreds playing out in our own backyard and we don't want our children to have to live in fear—not here, not ever. That's not the country we want because it is not the country that we are. So, Australians, all Australians in this place and all other places, let's look for solutions, not fights. Let's look for answers and not criticism. Let's not repeat hateful stuff in front of our children. If there were ever a time a nation needed to dig deep into its heart for calm on our streets and peace in our lives, I tell you that time is here. It's right in front of you, so dig deep. Leave that peace on our streets. Dig deep.

It's good to have you back, Senator Lambie, and thank you for that contribution. We and many people in this chamber know that having a baby is the most wonderful thing in the world. But, for some families, the experience can be incredibly physically and mentally difficult. Before my daughter, Stevie, was born, I had heard the term 'birth trauma', but I didn't really understand how common an experience it can be. I never thought that I would experience this trauma, and I never thought about how it would impact my life years after Stevie was born. Birth trauma can relate to physical and psychological trauma. For me, it was both. I was in pain and possibly in labour, but, for a variety of reasons, I was turned away. Among other circumstances, that led to an emergency C-section, a difficult recovery and a very close call for me and for the little, tiny baby that I had wanted for so very long. Of course, it was all worth it. Stevie is turning four in four weeks, and she just started soccer lessons on Saturday, so I'm a very proud soccer mum finally. But we know that, when pregnancies or births don't go to plan, women often suffer in silence, so I am sharing this story tonight.

We also know that, when you don't know where to go to get help, it embeds trauma instead of allowing people to recover from it. That's why I'm just so grateful and proud that our government, working alongside the Gidget Foundation, is delivering perinatal mental health centres across the country. I want to thank Assistant Minister Emma McBride for being in Townsville last week to announce that Townsville will be one of the very first places to establish one of these centres. The Townsville perinatal mental health centre will mean so much to parents, offering the specialised and important care that new parents need and deserve. This is a hallmark of our Labor government—a government that has set out to strengthen Medicare for all Australians.

After a decade of neglect, cuts and freezes under the former government, we are getting on with the job of delivering a better, fairer and stronger Medicare for all Australians, because, for Labor, Medicare is not negotiable. We're delivering more bulk-billing; cheaper medicines; more urgent care clinics across the country, particularly in regional areas; and, finally, better health care for women. Just last week, we delivered record hospital funding for every single state and territory. Our government has tripled the bulk-billing incentives for pensioners, concession card holders and children. We more recently expanded that to every single Australian. That single change has meant that millions more free GP visits across the country are happening right now. You can see this firsthand in how it has changed the way that bulk-billing is occurring in our communities. We know there's more work to do, but we're up for it, because everywhere signs are popping up that loudly and proudly show that clinics have gone 100 per cent bulk-billing.

But we did not stop there. We recognise that strengthening Medicare means strengthening access, and our Medicare urgent care clinics have been a game changer. For Queensland families, these clinics mean that, when they need care close to home, they can get it just with their Medicare card. Strengthening Medicare is also about recognising that, for too long, women's health has been underfunded and underacknowledged. Our government is changing that.

On top of introducing the perinatal mental health centres, we have expanded endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics and invested in more, including in my home town of Cairns—shout-out to Dr Sam and the team at the pelvic pain clinic; you guys are awesome! This team is providing specialised care to women who for years were told that their pain was normal or who were dismissed entirely.

On top of this, we're reducing the financial burden of contraception by improving access through the PBS. We've increased Medicare rebates for procedures like IUD insertions for women who are now not forced to pay hundreds of dollars of out-of-pocket costs for essential reproductive health care. For the first time, we've introduced Medicare supported menopause mental health care. Labor created Medicare. We will always protect it, and now we are strengthening it.

I wish to honour the lives of Barb and Stan Evans. Both were great Liberal Party members who contributed so much to the Liberal Party and South Australia. They recently passed away, last year. Stan passed away on 29 November, aged 95. Barb passed away on 4 December, aged 93.

Stan was a member of the South Australian parliament. He represented the seat of Onkaparinga from 1968 to 1970, the seat of Fisher from 1970 to 1985, and the seat of Davenport from 1985 to 1993. He was known for his exceptional campaigning skills. He and Barb were married for over 74 years. Together, they not only contributed greatly to the life of the Liberal Party but also contributed an incredible amount to the Mount Lofty and Heathfield sporting communities. Stan was later awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for his service to the South Australian parliament, and he also received the Australian Sports Medal for an outstanding contribution to cricket, tennis and Australian Rules, and for 45 years of administration.

Tonight I wish to especially honour Barb and her contribution to my state and the hills community. Barb was a tireless supporter of Stan in his public life, and he would not have achieved as much if it were not for Barb. Throughout her life, she was sustained by her strong faith; she was a member of the Upper Sturt Uniting Church. She and Stan worked together as a dynamic partnership to especially advance sporting clubs in their community. Barb served as the president of the Heathfield Netball Club. She was president and life member of the Hills Netball Association and a life member of the Mount Lofty Football Club. Barb was also awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia, for her service to the Liberal Party and the Adelaide Hills community.

A recurring theme in the eulogies at their memorial service was their commitment not only to their community and sporting clubs but also to nurturing and mentoring young talent. A social media post of the Heathfield Aldgate United Football Club reads:

Their legacy lives on not only through clubs and facilities they helped build, but also through the next generation. The flame continues to be carried proudly by Stan and Barb's children who have all contributed in various roles across the club.

Two prestigious awards were named in their honour: the Mount Lofty Cricket Club champion trophy and the Heathfield Netball Club Barb Evans volunteer of the year award. Barb and Stan were very proud of their son Iain Evans, who succeeded Stan as the member for Davenport and held the seat from 1993 to 2014. I had the privilege of serving with Iain.

I extend my condolences to Barb and Stan's children: Yvonne, David, Ian, Daphne and Andrew, and to their families. My thoughts and prayers are with you all. I wish to extend my personal thanks to Barb for all her kindness and support to me on my journey in the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party is so much poorer without the energy and dedication of Barb and Stan Evans. Rest in peace.

In my home of Port Phillip, the local council will soon vote on whether to end or continue developing aged social inclusion services through the better together program, a community based social connection program funded under the Commonwealth Home Support Program. The prospect that the council may walk away from a proven model, only to replace it with something that will ultimately cost more, is deeply concerning and a real shame for the city of Port Phillip. As a user of the program said:

It has reduced our loneliness and isolation. We became friends with other participants and staff who are kind and caring. We felt a greater level of community connection and cohesion. We felt that we belong.

People who rely on the better together program to stay active and avoid isolation are rightly worried. They fear a decline in quality and accessibility, along with higher personal costs, outcomes that have become all too common in aged care. I urge the City of Port Phillip to continue providing these social inclusion services in their current form to protect the quality, continuity and accountability that public delivery provides, and I urge the Labor government to confront the broader aged-care crisis, as my colleague Senator Allman-Payne has. We must properly fund public and community based care and end the overreliance on for-profit providers from early childhood right through to aged care. Our communities deserve nothing less.

Think Australia's emissions are insignificant? The Otway Basin acreage release has just opened 2.5 million hectares of Southern Ocean waters to gas exploration—exploration by multinational corporations with a track record of pillaging our environment, shipping gas overseas and not even cleaning up after themselves. We are the third-largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world, and the coalition thinks that's great. 'If we're going to be climate criminals,' they figure, 'we might as well get away with the money.' Except we don't. We export the vast majority of our gas overseas for next to nothing, a deal so lopsided it's made us a global laughing stock. We sell gas to Japan, and Japan onsells it and somehow makes more money than we do. Labor thinks that's a great arrangement too. They're putting our marine ecosystems at risk through seismic blasting so their donors and foreign buyers can make a profit.

Labor's 2½ million hectare Otway Basin release isn't just another bad climate decision. It flies in the face of communities who have said loudly and clearly that our ocean is not for sale. That's why my Greens colleagues and I joined hundreds of Victorians in a paddle-out with Surfrider in Torquay on the weekend. We'll challenge you in the ocean, we'll challenge you in the parliament, and we will challenge you at the ballot box at the next Victorian state election in November.

In October 2023, he endorsed collective punishment against all Palestinians in Gaza, and his comments have been used to prove the crime of genocide. In the following two years, his government has overseen the killing of at least 70,000 people, overwhelmingly women and children. He's the head of state of a country responsible for blockading Gaza, the mass starvation of children, and indiscriminate bombing of schools, hospitals and refugee camps, actions that continues today. Since 2023 the country he represents has continued to perpetrate genocide in Palestine as the death toll of journalists rises to 250. He has failed to apologise to the Australian people or the family of Zomi Frankcom after the IDF killed the Australian aid worker. He has stood for photographs with bombs that he's signed his name on with a permanent marker before they were fired into Gaza. Who is he? He is an invited guest to Australia, invited by our prime minister Albanese. He is Israeli President Isaac Herzog, and here is perhaps an easier question: has this government lost all semblance of humanity? It is a great shame that we are inviting this person to our shores when he has perpetrated and overseen these horrific acts perpetrated against Palestinian people. I'm proud to stand with the Greens, in particular my colleague Mehreen Faruqi, in protest, along with the thousands of protesters across our streets who are rejecting the division that this visit will bring.

You deserve to choose what car you buy, yet Labor is limiting your choice when it comes to buying a ute, SUV or four-wheel drive. Australians deserve to know the truth about Labor's ute tax. The New Vehicle Efficiency Standard Act 2024 introduced fleetwide emissions targets for new passenger and light commercial vehicles. The legislation does not ban petrol or diesel vehicles; however, it relies on penalties and credits that steer car manufacturers towards electric vehicles as the lowest risk compliance option.

Manufacturers respond to regulatory pressure. That means a reduction in the range and volume of higher emission vehicles offered in Australia. Everyday Australians rely on utes, four-wheel drives and SUVs, yet in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, when families are choosing between air-conditioning their homes and purchasing groceries and when businesses are going bust, this Labor government is reaching into your driveway and your pocket, trying to dictate how you will spend your money and what car you can drive, regardless of need or vehicle requirements.

Funnily enough, the highest selling vehicle in Australia is a ute. Under Labor's vehicle efficiency standards, car manufacturers must meet ever-tightening average CO2 targets for their fleets or face hefty penalties. By 2029, allowable emissions per kilometre will halve, forcing car makers to drastically change their model mix. If a manufacturer exceeds the cap, they will be fined $100 for every gram of CO2 over the limit per vehicle sold. Companies that beat the target earn credits, and they can sell to those who do not by effectively subsidising electric vehicles at the expense of petrol, diesel and even hybrid models. The government insists this is not a tax because the fines are paid by the car makers, not the buyers. But car makers even admit that they will pass this cost on to consumers. The National Farmers' Federation has been blunt and said:

There is no point trying to tax us into choosing lower emissions vehicles when those alternatives don't exist.

Utes and four-wheel drives aren't a choice for farmers and tradies.

Industry modelling predicts that some of Australia's most popular models will surge in price. By 2029, Australians could be paying over 25 per cent more for the average ute. That means paying an extra $4,900 for a Toyota RAV4, $7,800 extra for a Toyota LandCruiser Prado and $14,400 extra for a Ford Ranger. This policy is estimated to take about $2.8 billion from farmers, from tradies and from families by 2029. Manufacturers are already pulling models out of our market. Ford has stopped selling the 4x2 Everest. Isuzu has dropped the 4x2 MU-X. The fines under Labor's new standard make these vehicles unviable in the Australian market.

Labor's policy is simple: you will pay more and have fewer options. Vehicles that symbolise the Australian way of life are in the crosshairs. LandCruisers, Patrols and Prados will not be spared. It reaches into rural Australia's heartland, and tradies, families and anyone who wants to tow a caravan and explore our great nation. Tradies who use a ute as a mobile workshop will pay up to $17,000 more. Farmers who need a robust four-wheel drive will face limited options and disappearing models. It's happening before Australians are ready. For many users, EVs are not yet viable. Farm and worksite vehicles need long-range, heavy towing capacity and durability in harsh conditions. Current electric utes and four-wheel drives cannot reliably meet those demands.

Australians deserve the right to choose—to choose what they buy and how they spend their money. The Labor government are more concerned with changing consumers' behaviour to meet their ideological targets. Let me be clear about what this means for Australians. It means families are paying nearly $13,000 more for a Mazda CX-5, it means tradies are paying nearly $17,000 more for an Amarok and it means farmers are paying $17,000 more for a HiLux.

Interest rates have gone up today, and for millions of people that means another hit that they simply cannot absorb. If you're sitting at home wondering how much more you're expected to cop, you're not alone. Sixty per cent of Australians are in housing stress, forced to spend more than a third of their income on housing. That is not a temporary aberration. That is a full-blown crisis. I want to talk about what that crisis looks like in real life.

Kai is in their early 30s. They did everything they were told to do. They spent their 20s working, renting and paying off their HECS debt, which is something that now takes the average person 10 full years to repay. Over that time, Kai's rent has gone up and then up again, and then up again. There are no real protections, no limits and no security. Their landlord owns five properties and can raise the rent whenever they want, and Kai just has to cop it. Buying a home feels completely out of reach.

In Australia, it is easier to buy your fifth investment property than your first home. If Kai does manage to save and get a mortgage, on average, the bank will profit more than $200,000 from Kai's home loan. Australia's banks are among the most profitable corporations in the world. Over the last decade, rents have increased by 48 per cent across our capital cities. Food is up 43 per cent; electricity is up 44 per cent. So what does all of this mean for Kai? Kai is now $52,000 worse off than they were 10 years ago, despite working harder, paying more and doing everything right.

In the face of all this, what has Kai seen from a Labor government that is now in its fourth year? They've seen talk, platitudes and policies that have made this even worse. The coalition created many of these problems by doing nothing, but Labor's approach has been smoke and mirrors—announcements designed to sound good while leaving the underlying system untouched or, worse, actively reinforcing it. Is it any wonder people feel powerless? In this country, we're promised that, if we work hard, we set up our futures and we get ahead. But, right now, for so many people, that contract feels broken.

So let's be clear about choices. Instead of spending upwards of $368 billion on submarines, Labor could build thousands of public homes, or they could wipe student debt. Instead of handing out $180 billion in tax concessions to property investors, Labor could give the seven million renters in this country—people like Kai—a fair go, with real protections and secure homes. By making big corporations and billionaires pay their fair share, Labor could lift income support above the poverty line and abolish the partner income test, or they could lower the age of the parental income test to 18. Instead of refusing to tax extreme wealth, Labor could act.

Just one year of the average increase in Australian billionaires wealth equals the annual incomes of more than 2,000 Australians. These are choices. Labor has been in government for four years, and people like Kai are still falling further behind. The question is simple: will Labor continue to prioritise property investors, billionaires and big corporations, or will they finally choose Australians like Kai? Because the Greens do, and we will keep fighting until this country works for everyone—not just the ultra-wealthy few.

The skyrocketing increase in your household budget is about to get worse and you can blame Labor for that. Ever-increasing household bills, groceries, record residential property prices and higher interest rates for everyone piles even more stress on ordinary Australians. The cost of just about everything—you've experienced it for yourself—has gone up under Labor. Inflation went up last week and is above the Reserve Bank target range. As expected, the announcement came today that interest rates are up too. The truth is that, when the Prime Minister told Australians the economy had turned a corner, it had not. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Increasing inflation and increasing interest rates is a trend, and today it equates to a bad day for aspiring and existing homeowners—no matter how Labor tries to spin it. Those seeking to break into the housing market know their dream of homeownership is moving out of reach. For mortgage holders, the cost of your mortgage will go up, making it harder again to get ahead. Average mortgage holders are already paying around $21,000 per year more in interest than they were under the previous government. For those renting, this means the likelihood of experiencing even higher rent for longer.

Labor would rather ignore these trends than deal with them. Productivity is down, undermining wages growth, business investment and long-term prosperity. There are more jobs, but most of them are in the public sector and paid for by your taxes. Labor's spending is growing, adding nearly $60 billion to the national credit card, and you can be assured that, when Labor need money, they'll come after yours. A new $60 billion budget black hole gets no explanation from the Albanese government other than to blame someone else—anyone else but them.

It is Labor's economic policy failures that are driving your cost of living up, and it's getting worse for South Australians in my home state. We pay the highest electricity prices in the country, and it's now about to get worse, thanks to Labor. Labor in South Australia, and this Albanese government, have announced funding for housing in South Australia. But the Master Builders Association of SA responded with a simple question: 'Who is going to build them?' Master Builders SA CEO Will Frogley asked a fair question, but he hears, like we do, another announcement without the answer. The Albanese government is good at making promises but not at keeping them. We know that the number of apprentices completing training has nosedived under Labor. Yet, under the migration program, they are bringing in yoga instructors and hairdressers. What is needed is to count completions, not enrolments, across our training system and to look at ways to increase and incentivise older Australians to take up training.

Labor is quick to talk up renewable energy and that mix in South Australia, but those in Adelaide pay more for power than those in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. It is Labor's reckless race to zero that is making it harder for ordinary Australians. The coalition's energy policy is about cheaper, more reliable energy, leveraging from our natural resources, while doing our fair share on emissions reduction.

Running a small business in South Australia has never been harder than under the South Australian and federal Labor governments. The evidence is actually in. Business insolvencies are up in South Australia, as they are nationally. In South Australia, in 2022, there were 289 insolvencies. In 2025, that figure more than tripled to around 929. You can do the maths. In any language, that's just plain bad. Labor's hydrogen hoax proved to be a flop, allocating $600 million to the project with its promise of bringing cheaper power and economic growth. Instead, it just brought debt. Then there's this week's state and federal health announcement, with the promises of benefits for South Australia. But, again, that comes against the backdrop of their failed promise to fix ambulance ramping. They didn't deliver it. They said South Australian lives depended on it; they didn't deliver it. In fact, it's gotten worse.

These many failures and broken promises are Labor's design on deliverables. Keeping it real is to be sceptical of Labor's rhetoric. Australia has experienced one of the largest declines in living standards in the developed world. This Labor government's bad economic policy is failing you, and you know it, because ordinary Australians are the ones working more for less. South Australia and this country deserve better. But Labor has no intention of delivering that and has no capacity or will to deliver that.

Australians are doing it tough right now, and today's RBA rate hike won't help those struggling to pay off their mortgage and living with cost-of-living pressures, including higher rental, insurance, health and education costs. House prices continue to rise and enter a historic national housing affordability crisis. It's fair enough that a lot of Aussies are angry and frustrated. This frustration has boiled over after decades of inaction. Rather than reform policy and fix the critical issues hurting everyday Australians, Labor, and the Liberals and Nationals before them, have been tinkering around the edges, too timid and captured to confront what needs to be done. Adding insult to injury, populous politicians and the superwealthy are happy to distract away from real solutions that will benefit Australians.

The Greens are the only party that will tackle corporate greed and make supermarket price gouging illegal by introducing bills to parliament that would smash up the duopoly and make groceries more affordable. For years, we have fought for battlers, for rental caps and for meaningful government investment in public and affordable housing supply. The Greens are the only party prepared to campaign and legislate to remove the rorts in the housing market that lock out young and low-income Australians, benefiting the wealthiest of our nation. For decades now, we've fought to remove capital gains tax concessions and negative gearing deductions for rich property investors. Fifty per cent of the benefit from these schemes has accrued to one per cent of investors—that's right. How obscene—the lucky country, indeed, if you're rich.

What's making this cost-of-living and housing crisis worse is deliberate misinformation, which confuses and cons the public. Of course, population growth and, therefore, immigration plays a role in domestic demand for housing. But, seriously, it's not even close to being the cause of the problem. It's just a convenient distraction. Migrant workers also play a crucial role in the health of our economy. Both big and small businesses depend on migration for labour, and so does our service economy, which underpins our nation's standard of living. Of course, history shows that our nation was built by migration, and we are much richer culturally and economically because of it. How did we drift so far off course?

One Nation's political fortunes, surging on the back of this new, anti-immigration culture war, might suggest that they have tapped into a deep discontent in the electorate, but we need to look deeper than their tired old tropes suddenly finding support amongst disillusioned Australians. Third-party political attack groups like Advance, backed by big money, have helped shift public opinion and enable this. Yesterday's Australian Electoral Commission disclosures show that Gina Rinehart's company, Hancock Prospecting, has been a big donor to this massive misinformation machine.

Billionaires influencing our democracy is not new, but, right now, it has never been more salient to recognise this. Look at the unprecedented influence of billionaire donors on US politics, or look at the latest Epstein disclosures. Rob Harris reported yesterday, in the Sydney Morning Herald, on Steve Bannon, Trump's strategist, boasting he had persuaded another Australian billionaire, Clive Palmer, to spend $60 million on political ads—straight-up misinformation attacking Labor on climate change and Chinese influence in the lead-up to the 2019 election campaign. Apparently, according to Bannon, this was part of a plan to help disrupt global democracy. Mr Palmer has denied this, of course, but I don't believe him. Apart from the fact that a billionaire in Australia—or any billionaire, come to think of it—is spending tens of millions of dollars peddling misinformation on climate change to deliberately undermine policies, an action necessary to prevent climate collapse, makes me sick to the pit of my stomach, the important message is this: the superwealthy, the one per cent, want you to blame migrants, climate policy, Chinese influence or any other manufactured culture war for our economic and social woes so that you don't blame the likes of them.

Do you think their millions spent trying to influence democratic processes is about helping battlers? I don't think so. We don't know exactly what their agendas are, but we can hazard a pretty good guess. It's not about us; it's all about them. Pauline Hanson's One Nation party should take note.

While I live on the Darling Downs—we have a bit of weather; we've had some rain recently, we've had a bit of wind, and sometimes we'd like some more rain—our weather is nothing compared to what the far north of Queensland, the gulf and the peninsula, have received from the weather gods over the past few months, from monsoonal flooding to an ex-cyclone to more flooding. That part of my state has really done it tough. Primary producers have suffered. Livestock losses are projected to exceed 100,000 head. Families have seen their homes inundated, with floodwaters destroying personal belongings—a lifetime's worth of memories washed away. Of course, there's been extensive damage to critical roads, bridges and rail lines—infrastructure that these communities rely on. Most recently, the community of Einasleigh was hit particularly hard, experiencing flooding at levels not seen in living memory. The floodwaters ravaged this community, damaging homes, roads and, in particular, the pub—a pub that actually has appeared in my country pub calendar. Just days after the Wellby family took ownership of the Einasleigh Hotel, it was inundated by over a metre of water running through the front bar. You should google the pub to see these quite distressing images.

The destruction witnessed across Queensland is truly heartbreaking, and recovery from these weather events will take some time. As a Queensland senator, one thing has stood out clearly: the rapid response of the Crisafulli LNP government to the needs of those affected communities and the response of local members like Phil Thompson and Andrew Willcox and, in particular, my fellow senator Susan McDonald. The Queensland Premier, his ministers and my colleagues have been on the ground, standing side by side with those impacted, listening to their concerns and making sure actions happen. Support has been rolled out across the region, including financial assistance measures. Queensland will rebuild, as we always do.

Today the Reserve Bank raised interest rates to 3.85 per cent, a direct result of Labor's woeful mismanagement of our economy. The RBA's decision reflects headline inflation's rise to 3.8 per cent, well above the two-to-three per cent range. This rate rise will cost the average Australian mortgage holder more than $100 a month at a time when they can least afford it. The average mortgage holder is now paying an extra $23,000 a year in interest since Labor was elected. Respected economists across Australia have made it clear that this rate rise and untamed inflation are due to government spending courtesy of Treasurer Jim Chalmers. This excessive spending continues to fuel inflationary pressures and crowd out private sector activity. The worst is yet to come, with headline inflation set to rise higher to 4.2 per cent by June. What does the Treasurer have to say for himself as Australian families suffer because of the economic incompetence of the government? 'It's not my fault.' What does the Prime Minister say? Well, he doesn't say anything, because he's at the tennis. Rather than roll up his sleeves and get to fixing the economy, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister are spectacularly attempting to claim their relentless spending has nothing to do with inflation.

Meanwhile, Australia's inflation rate is higher than every major advanced economy, government spending continues to grow, gas is up 42 per cent, electricity is up almost 40 per cent and the cost of freight and everyday goods continues to skyrocket. In the current financial year alone, Labor has added an additional $50 billion of new spending decisions, almost the value of the entire national defence budget. This is Labor, Jim Chalmers and the Prime Minister's cost-of-living crisis. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister can deny it all they like, but when they spend, Australians pay. Under Labor, you always pay more.

I rise this evening to commend the students, teachers and community partners involved in the Freshwater Bay Primary School Karrakatta Cross Initiative, a remarkable local project that brings history, service and remembrance to life for young Western Australians. Since 2021, Freshwater Bay Primary School has partnered with the Claremont RSL sub-branch to ensure the sacrifices of Australian service men and women buried at Karrakatta Cemetery are not forgotten.

Last year, 79 year 5 and year 6 students took part in this deeply moving program, joined by families, dignitaries, community members and RSL representatives as part of the school's broader Remembrance Day commemoration. In the weeks leading up to their visit, students research an assigned soldier, examining enlistment records, service histories and medals through primary sources such as the National Archives, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and the Metropolitan Cemeteries Board records. This transforms classroom learning into a meaningful act of civic remembrance, helping students understand the human stories behind our nation's history.

The program was originally developed in response to the cemetery renewal program under the Cemeteries Act 1986, during which many official grave commemorations were regrettably removed and destroyed. While the veterans' remains were undisturbed, the loss of their headstones erased visible evidence of their service. Freshwater Bay students are helping to restore that remembrance.

During the visit to Karrakatta, each student pair delivers an ode of remembrance for their chosen soldier, locates their gravesite, reflects on their life and lays a decorated wooden cross, poppy or Australian national flag in tribute. Last year, 39 soldiers buried in the renewed Anglican sections were honoured. This initiative is shaped by outstanding teachers Ben Turner and Cindy Carboni and enriched through the school's growing alliance with the Claremont and Nedlands RSL subbranches. Students have met veterans, nurses, historians and family members, adding depth, context and compassion to their studies.

The Karrakatta Cross Initiative embodies respect, reflection and gratitude. It strengthens community remembrance and ensures the next generation understands the enduring impact of service and sacrifice. Tonight I'd like acknowledge and commend all who make it possible.

I rise this evening also to place on the record remarks marking a very special birthday for Sandra Blackham, a woman whose contribution to our community deserves recognition far beyond this chamber. Many words come to mind when I think of Sandra—selfless, generous and warm—but, above all, she is someone who is constantly in the service of others.

Within the Burmese Buddhist community in Perth's northern suburbs, Sandra is often described as the mother of the community—a constant presence, a quiet organiser and a reminder that kindness and generosity, when practised consistently, have a way of multiplying. Since the military coup in Myanmar, the suffering of the Burmese people has weighed heavily on Sandra. Like so many in the diaspora, she has carried deep personal heartache and disappointment. But what distinguishes Sandra is that she has transformed that concern into action. With compassion and resolve that far exceed her petite presence, she has worked tirelessly to support those in desperate need, coordinating assistance, offering comfort and ensuring the voices of her community are heard.

Her service to the Burmese Buddhist community in Perth's northern suburbs and to those still suffering in Burma deserves much wider public recognition. In a complex and uncertain world, we are all better for Sandra's presence. To Sandra's family, I say thank you for sharing her time and energy with so many others. Happy birthday, Sandra. May you be blessed for many years to come.

It's rare in this place to rise with unalloyed joy. Tonight I wish to relate a story and thank a young man in my home state of Western Australia: young Austin Appelbee, a 13-year-old who swam for four hours to save his family. Young Austin, his brother, his sister and his mum were having a normal, fun day, like so many thousands of Western Australians in Geographe Bay, out on a kayak and paddleboards. This really struck home for me because my kids were doing exactly that a few short weeks ago. When they went out, it was beautiful and serene, as Geographe Bay normally is, but things started to turn a bit rough. They got caught in a current, and it became very clear that they weren't going to be able to get back to shore. That is when the mum, Joanne, had to make the absolutely terrifying decision to ask her 13-year-old son to head back to shore in his kayak.

Young Austin took the task on and headed off, but the wind picked up and the sea was getting rougher and rougher. The kayak overturned numerous times and took on water. In the end he had to abandon not just his kayak but his life jacket because he knew the only way he was going to get to shore was to swim it, and swim it he did. He managed to make it back to shore, raise the alarm and get search and rescue out to help his mum, his brother, Beau, and his sister, Grace. They were found, luckily—very luckily—14 kilometres offshore at 8.30 pm. What an absolutely terrifying experience for them all. Austin, mate, you're a deadset legend and you deserve a shout-out in this parliament. Well done.

I was on leave during the last sitting of the Senate and was unable to participate in the condolence debate on the horrific terror attack at Bondi. I wish to place my remarks on the record now.

The attack at Bondi on 14 December was a moment that we feared yet hoped would never occur. It was a terrorist attack motivated by Islamic extremism with the intention of causing as much death and destruction of Sydney's Jewish community as possible. In its wake, 15 Australians were cut down by bullets as they attended a Hanukkah gathering or were simply enjoying a wonderful part of our world. While the terrorists sought to kill as many Jewish Australians as they could, the attack sent shockwaves through all of Australia and in fact around the world. Yet, in the worst of times, we saw the best of Australians. The countless examples of heroism from ordinary, everyday people on the street and on the beach reminded us of the Australian spirit. It reminded us that we are not a nation bound by race, religion, ideology or any other particular personal feature but a nation united behind the values of Australia and what makes our country so special: multicultural Australia.

First it was Boris and Sofia Gurman, Russian Australian Jews, who, upon seeing the flag of the so-called Islamic State in a parked car, wrestled with the gunman's weapon. While we will never know, there could have been only one thing on their minds: to save their fellow Australians. Then it was the heroism of Ahmed Al Ahmed, a Syrian Australian, who, with complete disregard for his own safety, snuck up behind the gunman, wrestled his firearm away and turned it back on the terrorist. His bravery was extraordinary and an example of the Australian spirit. There was Gefen Bitton, who, after seeing Ahmed Al Ahmed confront the gunman, left his safe hiding place to lend him a hand. There was Reuven Morrison, who ran towards the gunman and tried to bring him down with a brick. He defied any sense of self-preservation and made the ultimate sacrifice with his own life.

There were the volunteer lifesavers from the Bondi and North Bondi surf lifesaving clubs, who rushed to the aid of the fallen at significant risk to themselves. Then it was the fearless officers of the NSW Police Force, who marched to the sound of gunfire, faced the danger and brought down the terrorists. They were shot at, both their persons and their vehicles. Make no mistake—the police officers that attended that day are heroes. And it was the paramedics of the NSW Ambulance service who provided life-saving care to so many victims. They saved countless lives and livelihoods.

There were so many stories of heroism and good from that terrible day. Sadly, 15 Australians—15 people—were murdered in cold blood: Edith Brutman, Dan Elkayam, Boris Gurman, Sofia Gurman, Alex Kleytman, Yaakov Levitan, Peter Meagher, Reuven Morrison, Marika Pogany, Eli Schlanger, Adam Smyth, Boris Tetleroyd, Tania Tretiak, Tibor Weitzen and Matilda.

It is our most solemn of obligations to protect Australia. That is why we are here. We can never put another community at risk like we saw in Bondi again. There can be no legitimacy around problems that occur overseas and bringing those problems here—none. There can be no moral equivocation—none. We must hold extremists to account, no matter who they are or where they come from, whether their weapon is a bomb, a bullet or the dangerous words that come out of their mouths. They must face scrutiny, they must face the law and they must face consequences. That is our duty and our obligation.

Last month, the Victorian bushfires tore through communities with terrifying speed, particularly in the areas of Longwood, Harcourt, Walwa and the Otway Ranges. These fires have left families without homes. They have disrupted businesses and devastated farms and landscapes in many communities. Across Victoria, over 400,000 hectares have now been burnt. More than 1,500 structures, including over 400 homes, have been damaged or destroyed. Behind every number is a family, a livelihood and a future suddenly thrown into uncertainty. Tragically, the toll also includes a human life. Local cattle farmer Max Hobson died in the Longwood fire, and my thoughts are with his family and loved ones and the wider community that he was such a part of.

Recovery after a disaster isn't measured in days or weeks; it's measured in years. It requires ongoing commitment from all levels of government—local, state and federal—and the many communities and thousands of volunteers who always step up when it matters most. Last week's announcement of a further $160 million in recovery support from the federal and state governments is a significant step in that long journey, building on more than $210 million already committed. The support package covers a wide range of programs, from immediate clean-up and temporary accommodation to financial counselling for affected businesses and mental health support.

Alongside this assistance stands the extraordinary contribution of volunteers—the firefighters, the recovery workers, the local groups and the neighbours helping neighbours. They've been at the forefront of the bushfire response, working day and night to protect their communities. Their courage and compassion and tireless efforts restore hope and remind us of the very best of the Australian spirit in times of crisis.

The bravery of our emergency services doesn't stop with bushfires. Just a few weeks ago, on 15 January, while parts of the state were battling bushfires, communities and holiday-makers in Wye River, Kennett River, Cumberland River and Lorne faced intense rainfall that caused flash flooding. Thankfully, there were no serious injuries or casualties. I want to thank the local SES crews and CFA brigades for keeping people safe and coordinating clean-up efforts.

I'd also like to recognise another remarkable group, Operation Veteran Assist, who have had a busy summer. Established after the 2020 Black Summer bushfires and led by the Hawthorn RSL sub-branch, OVA supports veterans who have lost homes, farms or livelihoods to bushfires. They clear fallen trees, restore access to properties, repair fences and demolish damaged outbuildings, making a real difference on the ground where it's needed most, particularly by the many veterans, who deserve their assistance. In one week 37 volunteers, who are themselves veterans, worked on eight properties in Alexandra and Ruffy, with the support of a range of RSL sub-branches, including Alexandra, Epping, Dandenong, Cranbourne, Noble Park, Seymour and some interstate affiliates. Well done to everyone involved. Their teamwork and generosity have made a real difference to veterans and their families during a very challenging time.

Before concluding, I also want to acknowledge Australia's forestry industry, which plays a vital role in bushfire prevention, mitigation and response. Each year, our forestry sector invests over $100 million in these efforts. According to the Australian Forest Product Association, forestry businesses maintain 137 fire towers with detection cameras and investment worth $8 million. They create firebreaks and perform road maintenance and prescribed burns, worth almost $65 million. They provide over 1,200 response appliances, such as bulk water carriers, and 1,500 trained personnel, representing nearly $30 million in frontline capability.

As Co-Chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Forestry, Timber and Paper Products, I am proud to highlight the industry's important role, not just in employing many workers in regional towns but also in defending towns from bushfires. Above all, the Albanese government stands with every Victorian affected by this year's bushfires, not just in the immediate aftermath but over the long road to recovery. We're committed to working alongside communities, emergency services and volunteers to ensure that support is there every step of the way. Together, we will rebuild not just what was lost but stronger, safer and more resilient communities for the future.

I also wanted to rise tonight in the Senate to express my solidarity with the people of Iran and endorse the decisive action taken by the Albanese government earlier today, announced by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Since 28 December last year, the Iranian regime has responded to peaceful protests with extraordinary and horrifying violence against its own people. Tens of thousands of Iranians have been brutally murdered—reportedly, over 80,000. Many thousands more have been arrested, beaten or simply disappeared. Millions of brave Iranians are being terrorised by an evil regime for simply advocating for the basic human rights that we all take for granted here in Australia: the right to democratically elect their own government; equal rights, dignity and respect for women; individual rights and freedoms protected by the rule of law; and the right to a government which serves its people. The regime has attempted to conceal the scale of its brutality through nationwide internet and telecommunication blackouts—a tactic that is designed to weaponise fear and silence witnesses.

Today, the federal government has taken further action in response. Australia is imposing targeted financial sanctions on 20 individuals and three entities, including senior officials and entities of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. These are people and organisations that are complicit in violating and repressing protests and threatening lives both inside Iran and beyond its borders. This action builds on Australia's listing of the IRGC as a state sponsor of terrorism and our comprehensive sanctions framework against Iran. It also brings the total number of Iranian individuals and entities sanctioned by this government to more than 200, including over 100 linked directly to the IRGC. These sanctions are not symbolic; they are targeted, deliberate and designed to impose real consequences on those responsible for repression and violence, showing that Australia stands firmly with the people of Iran. The protests that we have seen in Iran are not merely about economic concerns, nor are they fleeting expressions of discontent. They reflect deep and longstanding grievances about repression, corruption and the denial of basic human rights. The Iranian people have shown extraordinary courage in the face of live ammunition, mass arrests and systemic intimidation.

I also want to speak directly to the impact that this is having here in Australia. Across our country, and particularly in Melbourne, members of the Australian Iranian community have watched these events unfold with profound anguish. Many have families, friends and loved ones at risk. Many have taken to our streets peacefully and lawfully to express their solidarity with those protesting in Iran and to call for accountability. Their voices matter, their concerns are legitimate and their advocacy has played an important role in ensuring that the international community does not look away. Australia is strengthened by a diaspora that remains deeply connected to its heritage while contributing to our democratic life. The Persian community have enriched our society as educators, professionals, artists, business owners and community leaders. Their lived experience gives urgency and clarity to our response. The government stands with the Iranian diaspora in Australia. We recognise the fear, the grief and the anger many are feeling, and we acknowledge the courage it takes to speak out, even from afar, against a regime that has shown itself willing to punish dissent.

Australia's message is clear: the use of violence against civilians, the silencing of dissent and the systemic denial of human rights will not be met with indifference. We are acting alongside international partners to hold the Iranian regime to account and to work to end its oppression and destabilisation. We will continue to use every diplomatic and economic tool at our disposal to support accountability and to defend the rules based international order. I want to acknowledge the bravery of the Iranian people—the women, the men, the students, the workers and the families—who continue to speak out. Australia stands with you. Today's sanctions reaffirm our commitment. The Albanese government will continue to act calmly, firmly and consistently in defence of human rights, international law and human dignity. But history is clear: regimes that shoot their own people eventually fall. The only question is: how many will they take with them along the way?

Good on you, Senator Ciccone! Good on you! I, too, rise in solidarity with the people of Iran. I stand with the courageous people of Iran, who are seeking peace, freedom and democracy. I stand with the courageous people of Iran who are being massacred and slaughtered by their own government—an evil regime, an odious regime who have suppressed human rights and supported terrorism around the world.

Last Saturday in Brisbane, at Reddacliff Place, I was honoured to speak at a rally with thousands of Queenslanders. Members of the Iranian Australian community and their fellow Australians were raising their voices against the brutality of the Iranian regime. The first rally I attended at that place in Brisbane with the Iranian Australian community was following the murder of Jina Amini, which led to the Woman, Life, Freedom movement. I was with our Iranian Australian community again last Saturday in solidarity with them.

Following the death of Jina Amini, I called for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp to be declared a terrorist organisation. Why? Because it is a terrorist organisation! Ultimately, the government declared it a terrorist organisation. And what we've seen in Iran since late December with the actions of the IRGC, the actions of the Iranian regime, underlines how the IRGC is a terrorist organisation committing terror against its own people—thousands and thousands massacred in the most despicable circumstances, an atrocity that will live in the memory of all freedom-loving people in the world.

I do call upon the Australian government to continue to apply sanctions, to apply more sanctions, to apply more economic pressure upon the Iranian government. I call on them to use our voice in every single international forum to call for freedom and democracy for the people of Iran, and to call for the violence to end, for the prisoners to be released and for peace to be restored for the people of Iran.

I also call for the Australian government to use all the resources of our security agencies to protect our Iranian Australian diaspora. I've heard again and again, and I heard it earlier this evening, the concerns of the Iranian Australian diaspora that they are being threatened, they are being intimidated by agents of the IRGC, agents of the Iranian regime, here in Australia. I say to our Iranian Australian diaspora: an attack on you is an attack on me. I say: an attack on you is an attack on the values represented by this Australian parliament. It cannot be tolerated. As an Australian people, as an Australian government, we must stand shoulder to shoulder with our Iranian Australian diaspora and give them the safety they deserve.

Our wonderful Iranian Australian diaspora has shown great courage in standing up for human rights in Iran. I stand in solidarity with our wonderful Iranian Australian community. I know many of you have been persecuted, intimidated and your families threatened. I know you are concerned about your loved ones. But please know that we in this place, in the Australian parliament, are standing with you. We will make sure your voices are heard.

Today the Reserve Bank of Australia lifted interest rates by one-quarter of a per cent to 3.85 per cent. That rise in interest rates is a direct result of the increase in the inflation rate under the Albanese Labor government. So as much as the Labor government wants to point the finger at everyone else, the buck stops with them. The buck stops with the Labor government. The increase in interest rates is a body blow to Australian families with a mortgage. Banks have already started to raise interest rates on mortgages.

In my home state of Queensland, the average mortgage for a new home buyer is $687,000. An extra 0.25 per cent means an extra $1,700 in interest a year after tax. Even before this interest rate increase, the average mortgage holder was $21,000 a year worse off under Labor. And it may not be the only increase, for it's rare for there to be only one increase. Typically, these increases occur in twos and threes and even more. It's a body blow to Australians with mortgages. It's a body blow to Australians who are seeking to enter into the housing market and whose borrowing capacity will be adversely impacted by this interest rate increase. And it's a body blow to Australians who're already suffering under Labor's cost-of-living crisis. Insurance is up 39 per cent, energy prices are up 38 per cent, rent is up 22 per cent, and food is up 16 per cent—body blow after body blow under Labor's cost-of-living crisis. My office is located in the Ipswich region. The people of Ipswich, many new homebuyers, are doing it tough. They're under mortgage stress and rent stress. Labor's crisis is making it so hard to make ends meet in Ipswich. The people of Ipswich deserve better. The people of Australia deserve better.

A week and a half ago, I attended a meeting with the wonderful Kurdish Queensland community. It's a very difficult time for the Kurdish Australian community at this point in time, given what is happening both in Syria and in Iran. I have previously stood in this place on multiple occasions and raised the human rights violations being committed by the Syrian government against minority groups in Syria. I've given speeches in relation to the persecution of the Alawites, Christians and the Druze under the current Syrian government. I now speak for the Kurdish people in Rojava. The Kurdish people in Syria were on the front line against ISIS. Thousands lost their lives. When ISIS spread across Syria and Iraq—committing mass executions, enslaving Yazidi women and destroying entire communities—it was the Kurdish people who held their ground. Kobani became a turning point in the war against ISIS as the Kurdish people held their ground. We've now seen appalling atrocities committed in the Rojava region by Syrian government forces, with the targeting of civilians, enforcement of collective punishment and human rights violations. This must stop, and all those responsible must be held to account.

I saw one of the most disturbing things I've probably ever seen. It was a Syrian government soldier waving the severed braid of hair from a Kurdish woman fighter. He was waving it as a trophy—a severed braid of hair. It was disgusting, it was depraved, and it was despicable. The response of Kurdish women all over the world has been inspiring and courageous. In defiance, Kurdish women all over the world are braiding their hair. I'm inspired by the response of Kurdish women all over the world. We, all freedom loving people, have a moral obligation to the Kurdish people in Syria to stand with them at this point in time. They were on the front line against ISIS. We owe the Kurdish people a moral obligation to stand with them.

At the same time, the Kurdish Australian community is suffering because of the appalling situation in Iran. Of course, Jina Amini, who was killed in 2022 and whose death triggered the 'Woman, Life, Freedom' movement, was a Kurdish Iranian. Now, in places like Rojhelat, peaceful protests have been met with bullets. Peaceful protesters have been shot down. I stand in solidarity with our Kurdish Australian community. I will make sure your voices are heard in this place.

I was absolutely delighted to attend the opening of the Somali House in Brisbane. We have a wonderful Somali Australian community in Brisbane and they achieved the milestone of opening Somali House in my home state, and it was wonderful to attend. The Speaker of the House of Representatives and Julie-Ann Campbell, the member for Moreton, were there as well. There was a cross-section of representatives from all parties to honour our Somali community as they open Somali House. Somali House has been opened in the Somali community's Australian home. And it is their home. I'd like to congratulate Mr Aweys Hassen Moge, the president of the Somali Community Association of Queensland on this milestone.

I rise this evening to pay tribute to a remarkable individual whose lifelong commitment to service has left an indelible mark on Tasmania and our nation: Paul Orlando Griffin OAM. Mr Griffin was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia in the 2026 Australia Day Honours List alongside 32 other well-deserving Tasmanians who received an honour this Australia Day. I extend my sincere congratulations to these deserving Tasmanians. Tonight, though, I want to talk about a legacy—Paul Griffin's legacy and dedication to the rights of working people, to the betterment of our society, and to the causes of justice and fairness. Mr Griffin stands as a shining example of what the Medal of the Order of Australia represents.

Paul, I thank you for your unwavering service, your compassion and your relentless pursuit of a fairer Australia. For more than three decades, Paul has been a tireless advocate for working people, particularly those who serve our communities in retail, warehousing, pharmacy and fast food. As State Secretary of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association—better known as the SDA—in Tasmania, he fought every day for workers. He fought for improved pay and conditions and respect in the workplace. His leadership transformed not just those workplaces but his members' lives. Paul's vision for fairness saw industrial relations in Tasmania progress, ensuring that the voices of men and women were heard and valued.

He tirelessly fought campaigns on superannuation, annual wage increases, Work Choices—he was there at the front line in Work Choices and the Your Rights at Work campaign, and I stood there shoulder to shoulder with him and other proud unionists and members of those unions—No One Deserves a Serve, equal pay at 18, Easter public holiday recognition in Tasmania and, most importantly, safety in the workplace. Paul's commitment did not end at the workplace door. His heart for service shines through his extensive charity work with St Vincent de Paul, where he brought dignity and hope to those doing it tough. In the Lilydale and George Town communities, Paul's faith and humility were the foundation of his quiet but profound influence.

Paul's strength as a leader was perhaps most evident during the COVID-19 pandemic. Amidst uncertainty and fear, he stood steadfast, advocating for the safety and wellbeing of SDA members and our essential workers. Paul was a driving force in the push to have workplace protections, fair pay and public recognition for those on the front line. His leadership ensured that retail and fast food workers—so often overlooked—were supported, respected and protected during one of our greatest challenges. Paul's compassion extended beyond the everyday. In the aftermath of the Hillcrest tragedy in Devonport, where we lost too many children, he was a pillar of support for the grieving parents and families, providing comfort and being an advocate for them when they needed it most.

His actions remind us that true leadership is measured not only in achievements but in the moments of crisis and in the quiet acts of kindness that help to heal. At the heart of Paul's life is the virtue of public service, a calling lived out alongside his loving wife, Heather, whose selfless partnership has been integral in his journey and whose lifelong commitment to educating Tasmanian children in the public education system complemented his work—a family committed to be betterment of Tasmanians. After all, education is the key to ensuring that our children have the skills to pursue their dreams. Together with their family, they have nurtured a spirit of generosity, integrity and hope in all that they do.

Paul's legacy is seen in everyday campaigns he has led and every improvement he has fought for, and Paul has been at the forefront, ensuring that the rights and dignity of workers are protected. His longstanding involvement in the Lilydale branch of the Australian Labor Party and his role in supporting election campaigns have strengthened our democracy and the voice of everyday Australians—in particular, everyday Tasmanians. His work at the SDA locally, in Tasmania, and at a national level has helped mentor a positive future for unions and their members in this country. Paul is someone who believes in service at the highest level, and his commitment to Tasmanian workers wasn't about seeking public office or glory for himself. It was never about that, unlike for some who are only motivated by their own ambition and who follow that ambition at any cost. He wasn't a Johnny-come-lately or someone driven by ego; he was driven by public service and helping his members day in and day out. He's always shown up for the work, and he's always shown up for his members.

His contribution to the labour movement and to the Australian Labor Party is unmatched. His wisdom, courage and compassion have shaped the lives of thousands, inspired generations of leaders and enriched the community we all get to share. Paul Griffin is a loyal person, and his word is his bond. This OAM is a fitting recognition, but Paul's real reward is the respect and gratitude he receives. I want to join with others from my party and those in the union movement to acknowledge his contribution, honour his lifelong service and thank him for his dedication, his leadership, his friendship, his counsel and his unwavering belief in the power of collective action for the good. May your example continue to inspire us all to serve and to give hope to our community. Congratulations and thank you for everything you have given to Tasmania and to Australia.

I want to move on. February—it's a great month. Lots of nice people have birthdays this month, I might say, but, most importantly, it's Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. Ovarian cancer isn't sexy, it's not attractive to sponsors and advertisers, it has no celebrity campaigners and it has, unfortunately, the kind of lack of attention that costs lives. It doesn't come with pink ribbons stitched to a football jumper or a glossy campaign fronted by celebrities or influencers. It doesn't dominate the airwaves or attract the same corporate backing. It doesn't receive the same level of public conversation, urgency or visibility, and too many Australian women have been neglected because they haven't been supported and because women's health hasn't been funded in the past. It has had, quite frankly, devastating consequences. For too many women, this diagnosis can feel like a death sentence because it is so often too late when they are diagnosed. Each year in Australia, over a thousand women lose their lives to ovarian cancer. That's about three women every single day in this country, and, without intervention, that number will only increase.

Tomorrow morning, there is a breakfast here. I have spoken in this chamber for a very long time, and every year I speak on this, but, unfortunately, we still have too many people who are dying. We need to raise awareness because it's not easy to come in here and talk about these issues—it doesn't attract the headlines. Too many Australian women are losing their lives. I don't want to come in here year after year and for it to become a habit where everyone expects that I'm going to get up and talk about ovarian cancer this month. There are real consequences, and there has been neglect over too many years and underfunding in women's health. That's why I am particularly proud of the Albanese Labor government and what we have done in injecting real money into women's health.

We recognise that the symptoms of ovarian cancer are things that we experience regularly. Too often, women don't put themselves forward and seek a second opinion because they're thinking about their families. I urge you: don't dismiss your body. Listen to your body and ensure that you seek a second opinion because your lives matter. With all that was done over the years when the coalition were in government, when Medicare was cut, when they stripped money out of our hospitals, when they didn't support GPs, what they were doing was providing, unfortunately, a death sentence for too many women who didn't have the support and who didn't have the money going into research. They deserve to be heard. We're listening to you, we see you and we support you.

It is my honour tonight to speak of the Dalai Lama and my recent trip to Dharamsala meet him—a highlight of my life—and to meet with the Tibetan government in exile. It's a particular honour to do so in the presence of Mr Karma Singey and members of the Tibetan community here in Canberra.

Last night was a special night. The Dalai Lama starred at the 68th Annual Grammy Awards ceremony in LA. He won Best Audio Book for his album, Meditations: The Reflections of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. It's not every 90-year-old international leader who wins a contemporary music award like the Grammys, and he won to world acclaim. But then, there is nothing ordinary about the Dalai Lama. This award wasn't just a win for an album but global recognition of the message that the Dalai Lama has championed in every year since 1959 when he was exiled from his beloved home of Tibet and began his long march for human rights. I congratulate the Dalai Lama on his award. Receiving it, he said:

I truly believe that peace, compassion, care for our environment, and an understanding of the oneness of humanity are essential for the collective well-being of all eight billion human beings. I'm grateful that this Grammy recognition can help spread these messages more widely.

In an immediate illustration of the political hostility of the Chinese government to the message of the Dalai Lama and the human rights of the people of Tibet, the Chinese government attacked the award as a tool of 'anti-China political manipulation'. Anyone who listens to the Dalai Lama's album will see the absurdity of this attack. Anyone who knows the history of Tibet and the determination of the Dalai Lama to foster democracy in Tibet can see this attack for what it is: hostility to the freedom of expression and the rights of Tibetans, including their spiritual leader.

On my trip to Dharamsala, I was proud to represent the Australian All-Party Parliamentary Friends of Tibet. On the delegation, I was joined by fellow parliamentarians Kate Chaney MP and Sarah Witty MP. Other delegations of politicians from around the globe joined us in standing up for Tibetans—parliamentarians from New Zealand, from Fiji, from the Czech Republic, from France and from Chile. We met with the Dalai Lama and with representatives of the Central Tibetan Administration, including its leader, the Hon. Sikyong Mr Penpa Tsering, the speaker of the parliament and many hardworking courageous ministers in the government.

Our visit coincided with the year-long 90th celebration of the Dalai Lama's birthday, a celebration shared by so many people across Australia at all kinds of events and parties. When we met with the Dalai Lama, he spoke of the rights all humans should share, rights that too many lack in practice, including in Tibet under oppressive Chinese rule: the rights to freedom of spiritual practice, culture and language, and the right to democratic control of life and country. We met the Dalai Lama on the 36th anniversary of the award of his Nobel Peace Prize and on International Human Rights Day. It was a joyous day of celebration.

Every year here in our own parliament, Australian parliamentarians join with the Australian Tibetan community to celebrate Tibetan culture and to call for human rights for all Tibetan people. We discussed the ongoing actions of the Chinese government in repressing these rights with terrible consequences for the six million Tibetans living in Tibet and to the great cost and sorrow of Tibetans all over the world, including in Australia, who experience growing surveillance and intimidation through transnational repression.

On our visit, we heard many stories from Tibetan exiles who had left their home country, often in dangerous circumstances, because they were unable to speak out or protest the occupation of their beautiful country without fear of arrest or torture. Even to carry a picture of the Dalai Lama was a dangerous act resulting in long political imprisonment. Tibetans face, as His Holiness has described, a calculated and systemic strategy by the Chinese government aimed at the destruction of their national and cultural identity. It will no doubt be impossible for Tibetans to publicly listen to the Dalai Lama's Grammy-Award-winning album and its message of peace.

Too many young Tibetans are forced to leave their country and their families behind to pursue basic freedoms. Too many are jailed for expressing love and support for the Dalai Lama. We heard their stories directly from them. They are heartbreaking. One young woman, when 15 years old, was jailed for five years without visitors for carrying a picture of the Dalai Lama. Too many children are removed to colonial boarding schools and subject to loss of language and traditions that amount to cultural genocide. These are fatal cultural losses that we know from our own Australian colonial history and into our present that cause untold intergenerational harm to children who are removed from their families, culture, spirituality and language in an evil regime deliberately designed by the Chinese government to deny Tibetans their cultural identity.

From here in the Australian parliament, here in the Senate, as a member of the Australian All Party Parliamentary Friends of Tibet, I say: we see you. I say to every brave Tibetan living in Tibet or in exile who is unable to exercise their human rights: we see you. You are entitled to the rights of freedom and to your culture, spirituality and language.

The Dalai Lama is loved throughout the world, including by many within China, for his steadfast commitment to nonviolence in the face of great provocation. He is loved for his courage, his sense of humour and the vision of human rights that he offers to the world. Most important is the right of the Tibetans to determine the identity of the next Dalai Lama following their own spiritual and cultural practices. Tibetans must have the right to choose a future Dalai Lama using their traditional processes without the interference of the Chinese government. The world would see such interference for what it is, a trampling of the human rights and spiritual freedoms of a people.

We must take stronger action right now to protect the Tibetan people. We must see sanctions against Chinese government officials responsible for policies that are harmful to Tibetans and for gross human rights violations inflicted on Tibetans. Australians will continue to stand across political parties in this parliament for the freedom of Tibetans living in oppression, unable to speak out or protest the occupation of their country without fear of arrest and torture.

In his poetry and words on his Grammy-Award-winning album, the Dalai Lama speaks of peace. He asks us to never give up. We will not give up on Tibet. We Australians have an important role to play in standing strong with the Tibetan government in exile and the Tibetan people to retain their language, their culture and their political and spiritual practice on their own terms.

I gave the Dalai Lama a small felt red kangaroo made by a South Australian artist, Sandra Tredwell, when I met with him as a symbol of my own place, Adelaide, Kaurna country, the land of the red kangaroo. He placed the kangaroo inside his shirt, near his heart. I reminded him that kangaroos cannot ever go backwards. They can only travel forwards, just like the long struggle of the Tibetan people as they strive towards democracy and freedom. We walk at your side.

Tonight I deliver One Nation's eulogy for the status quo that had dominated Australian politics since 1949 and that passed away during the break. 1949 was the year Labor prime minister Ben Chifley delivered the famous 'Light on the hill' speech and Robert Menzies was elected as the first Liberal Party prime minister. Both were men of vision, both had the courage of their convictions and both were driven by a deep love for our beautiful country. This may cause offence amongst the 2026 rabble pretending to still be Labor, yet I must point out the 'light on the hill' metaphor Ben Chifley used as a regular churchgoer is almost a direct quote from the Gospel of Matthew 5:13-16. This is the famous 'salt and light' passage from Jesus's 'Sermon on the mount', where he said inter alia: 'You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Men do not light a candle and put it under a bushel but on a candlestick, and it gives light to all that are in the house.' And it's true that Chifley's speech was rooted in the trauma of the Great Depression, with this line:

If the movement can make someone more comfortable, give to some father or mother a greater feeling of security for their children, a feeling that if a depression comes there will be work, that the government is striving its hardest to do its best, then the Labor movement will be completely justified.

How times have changed. The Labor Party now refuses to even say 'mother' or 'father', let alone build them into their policies. Indeed, Labor ministers refuse to define what a woman is. Today's Labor Party uses gender ideology to subvert the concept of man and woman. It refuses to back families as the fundamental building block of society. It undermines family. To those on the government benches, 'uterus owners' and 'prostate owners' now stand as references to women and men, with 'birthing parents' and 'ejaculators' serving as references to mothers and fathers.

The Labor Party has used transgenderism to establish the principle that the state owns your child, and refusing the state's instruction to transition your child will result in the termination of parental rights. Parents should understand that children are no longer, as Ben Chifley said, theirs; rather, they are the state's. Last week Jacinta Allan, the Premier of Victoria, confirmed this new Labor principle in the extraordinary defence of child castration, which she still insists on calling 'gender-affirming care'.

Mass immigration eliminated job security for most unionists and forced unions to become more and more militant in response to the cost of economic growth. We stopped building wealth. Instead, the fight is over a greater share of the same pie, an inevitably futile task. It's a game the wealthy have won and the working class have lost, because the Labor Party falsely pretends that it's in the worker's corner when it's not. Corporate profits as a share of gross domestic product have risen from 17 per cent in 1975 to 65 per cent in 2020. The share of gross domestic product for wages and salaries has fallen from 25 per cent in 1975 to 17 per cent today. Corporate profits keep going up. The income share of the middle class, who are still paying everyone's social security, just keeps going down.

It's impossible to look at this data and see a pattern which apportions blame only to the Liberal Party's periods in office. Both parties are to blame and equally so. The status quo has done over Australian workers, and the polling for One Nation clearly shows workers, tradies and small business are sick of it. Ben Chifley spoke of comfort as a core Labor Party value, and I ask Australia's working class: where's your comfort? You're not only being attacked as colonisers and being degendered and disrespected in Labor's social policy; your financial position has gone backwards.

The cronyism and corruption inherent in the net zero transition—the lie—designed as it is to subvert energy generation to the weather, has run riot and rampant through the economy. Business insolvencies are at a record high. Householders are terrified of opening their power bills, and bills are set to rise at five times the inflation rate this financial year, as the cynical energy subsidies the Albanese Labor Government uses to bribe voters and cover up the problem are removed to reduce Labor's growing budget deficit. Inflation is out of control because of that deficit. And yet you're responsible for the deficit and the inflation which has resulted from your bribes, dishonesty and pathetic financial mismanagement.

It's taken 75 years for the inspirational vision reflected in the 'Light on the hill'—a vision of family, comfort and, yes, happiness—to degenerate into an imbroglio of self-interest, moral degeneracy, cronyism, cynicism and, in places, outright corruption. The status quo died because it failed Australia's working class. It's no accident that, in the latest polls, people earning over $100,000 a year still support Labor ahead of anyone else. Labor's new culture of social engineering and division on ethnic grounds has support from those whose incomes insulate them from the damage these policies are doing. Indeed, this moral virtue signalling has replaced the light on the hill. Sit tibi terra levis: may the earth be light to you.

The Liberal Party is as culpable in this attack on the middle class. In Menzies's speech—which, to give it its correct title, was the 'Forgotten people' speech—he spoke of 'salary earners, shopkeepers, skilled artisans, professional men and women, farmers and so on'. He said:

These are, in the political and economic sense, the middle class.

They are for the most part unorganized and unselfconscious. They are envied by those whose social benefits are largely obtained by taxing them. They are not rich enough to have individual power. They are taken for granted by each political party in turn.

Menzies's success was to put the middle class at the fore, recognising that a strong middle class would power the economy and provide a tax base for those who were not able to provide for themselves. His words in 1944 took him into government in 1949, and he went on to become Australia's longest-serving prime minister for 18 years.

That was then. The year is not 1949; it's now 2026, and the modern Liberals no longer owe their allegiance to the middle class. Instead, they owe their allegiance to the wealthy interests who pay the bills and set the agenda. Those rivers of gold have enabled the Liberals to outspend the Labor Party during every election cycle since 2007. The Liberal Party puppetmasters are prepared to surrender the country to the Labor Party rather than see opposition leader Peter Dutton—someone who was asking for a modicum of independence and was eliminated. Those same forces are now defending their latest marionette, an opposition leader who's so weak that one has to ask: just how much are these people paying?

One Nation has no puppetmasters. We offer government decision-making based on facts and data, applying principles of fairness and patriotism. I will return to One Nation's plan for the post-status quo Australia in a moment. Menzies was again correct when he said:

The communist has always hated what he calls the "bourgeoisie", because he sees clearly the existence of one has kept British countries from revolution, while the substantial absence of one in feudal France at the end of the eighteenth century and in Tsarist Russia at the end of the last war made revolution easy and indeed inevitable.

What he did not realise is that the modern Liberal Party and the modern Labor Party are acting in unison to destroy the middle class, albeit for different reasons.

The Liberals want more money for their corporate owners, who do not understand the meaning of a fair share for all. Labor wants to bring about a revolution in society to mirror their Prime Minister's communist ideology, which is destroying the pillars of Australian society: family and the middle class. Not surprisingly, then, the middle class is shrinking, even as the overall share of wages and salaries in the economy is shrinking. Australia's median wage has gone backwards by eight per cent under this Labor government, although this is not just on them. Since 1980, the median Australian wage in real terms, adjusted for inflation, has not increased. Nothing. Zero. In that same time, education expenses have gone up 300 per cent, health care up 300 per cent and housing up 400 per cent. If it feels like you're working harder and going backwards, it's because you are. The Liberal-Labor status quo has screwed Australia rotten.

One Nation support has grown rapidly in the last eight months, which is proof that courage is contagious. For 30 years, One Nation has been confined to a cage built to contain our threat to the status quo, a cage that was plastered with a huge sign falsely declaring the contents racist. And, for 30 years, the narrative was successfully maintained because a host of dishonest, self-interested politicians, media and talking heads all benefited financially from maintaining the status quo.

One Nation will return $30 billion a year into the pockets of everyday Australians. We will shrink the government to fit the Constitution, reducing government spending by $90 billion a year and putting the budget into surplus in our first year. We will invest $20 billion a year in infrastructure, which the private sector will legally match, to build projects that grow wealth for everyday Australians, not foreign corporate profits. We've showcased these. These fully costed plans were taken to the electorate last May. We have the details. We know how we will do this, and we know that it can be done. The Australian people have clearly decided it's time to ignore the insults and instead vote with their heads and with their hearts. Australians want our country back. One Nation is the only party that can achieve that and, indeed, the only party that wants to achieve that.

Senate adjourned at 21:18